The Other One

This Gammons stuff is great news. If Boston is holding this up for a 25th prospect in their system there is no reason this shouldn't be closed out today. If they are laughing at us for thinking our prospects are the next Billy Williams, they must obviously realize the corollary that they aren't getting the next Billy Williams either. Therefore, they should prefer cash that they can use to turn into a top 15 prospect through international signing. Otherwise, take anything we offer. A 25th rated prospect is such a crap shoot anyway. I am sure Boston is leaking this to let their fan base know they are not getting anything so stop thinking we are.

Wow - a Boston reporter said things didn't go well? The same reporter pool that was dreaming about Castro and Garza or both initially? Then reality set in so they focused on Brett Jackson, this time for sure. Now a new reality is starting to set in. Yeah, it's not going well. For Boston.

It's exciting that we are discussing Epstein. If it happens we should be thrilled. But, I am still in the Andrew Friedman camp for a few reasons. One, I have this nagging feeling that Epstein would still have his heart elsewhere and would not be the GM here for 10 years. Maybe that is a good thing, but I'd like someone we won't constantly be worrying that he will be leaving when a better situation arises. I think Friedman would be someone who we can retain and will be the face of the Cubs long term. Second, I think there was a time in the early-mid 2000's that taking a smart statistical approach worked in part because there were still dinosaur teams to compete against. As teams like the Cubs get up to speed, the ability to hoodwink teams shrinks. If Friedman goes to Houston, we will have less chance to be special in a crappy division. Epstein won't leave Boston for anyone else (I still think it's slim he comes here), certainly not Houston. If we sign Friedman, there's a chance Houston stays behind. Third, Friedman has done it with a small budget and has out competed Epstein dollar for dollar. Why wouldn't I want the winner of that horse race instead of the second place guy?

Lovie is a maddening character. In a macro sense he is a great leader and seems to get a high level of respect from players around the league. His teams have been up and down in his tenure, but in bad times he didn't lose the team and was able to come back to a high point after a low point. I could see him leading this franchise on the field for several more years. But, the one area he drives me nuts is game time management and three areas in particular: 1) Challenges Challenges are risk-reward. I believe time outs are very precious and should not be used as a bargaining chip unless the reward is there. Yesterday was another example of a poor choice. While I think the initial spot was poor and it was likely that Hester was in, there was no need to challenge. The defense had just ran 50 yds chasing Hester, they were tired, you had 1st & goal with a lead and while a TD would help seal it, a FG would have looked good as a consolation prize. Throwing the flag gave the defense a 90 sec timeout to rest and get goal line personnel in and lined up. Very reminiscent of Washington last year. They scored a TD anyway, but gave up a timeout they didn't need to. I also believe late in the game, there are times challenges are better than timeouts. With 3 minutes left and needing to stop the clock or momentum, throw a flag and challenge a catch, the spot, the length of the cheerleaders skirt, anything. Who knows, you could be right and get an extra timeout. It will also be longer than 30 secs giving you more time to rest and regroup. 2) Third and long timeouts I forget the exact figures, but the Bears had a 3rd and 12 or so when Cutler stands up and calls timeout. A FG was the likely outcome of the drive and 3rd and 17 would have been the same as 3rd and 12. I have never seen Cutler coached to take the penalty versus the timeout. They took the timeout in this case, missed the first down and kicked a field goal. Again, scored and gave up a timeout they didn't have to. 3) Two minute drill With around 1:10 left in the half and Atl left with one timeout, the Bears had a first down in FG range. The goal should have been to run the clock, remove Atl's timeout and score before half without Atl getting the ball back. Instead, two short sideline pattern passes and an incomplete pass led to a FG and Atl getting the ball back with a timeout and 50 secs left in the half. This is a Bears team that lost to Atl with 12 seconds (?) left two years ago on a FG. The same team that gave up a 50yd+ to Tom Brady on the last play of the half last year. Two runs into the line would have eliminated Atl's TO and gotten the clock to nothing before kicking a FG to head to the locker room. Luckily, Atl did nothing with the ball before half. If they had and followed up the second half with the opening drive for a FG, the momentum switch would have been big. In yesterday's game, these situations were not critical. But, a well coached team should not get sloppy just because you have the lead. If Lovie would get improvement in his time management, he'd make me much happier as a fan.

You're probably thinking of Luis Salazar, who was with the Padres in 84 and was acquired by the Cubs (along with Marvell Wynne) in a post-deadline waiver deal in 89. Can't remember too many on field plays, but I'll never forget: "Salazar spelled backwards is Razzle Ass"

Player Development: 1. Do you believe in imprinting an organizational philosophy on developing players or do you believe that may constrict development in some players? 2. What portion of the system should be comprised of high ceiling guys vs. low floor players? 3. What portion of high school vs college players would a draft look like? 4. Would you seek value in positions underutilized in the majors (left handed pitchers, catchers) over best available athlete? 5. What is your philosophy regarding pitch counts especially during development? Major league roster 1. What is your thinking on line up construction and how important is it? 2. What time horizon do you use for roster construction and planning? 3. How should young players be brought into the majors?

He's really redefined the old adage of being aware of the wall that 29 yr old running backs hit. Since he started so young, he seemed to hit that wall earlier. Now I think people tend to look at running back life in terms of carries rather than age. And, yeah, as I think about it, Roy Williams may be in the discussion, but Portis is the Babe Ruth of the category.

Arismendy Alcantara in 2008?

Just as remarkable is the low number of 0'fers (not counting the continued Peoria game). I assume being the second game of the year, we faced pretty decent pitching. AAA AA A+ A Total AB H AB H AB H AB H AB H C 4 1 5 3 5 2 3 1 17 7 0.412 1B 5 1 5 2 2 1 5 1 17 5 0.294 2B 4 2 4 1 3 1 3 2 14 6 0.429 3B 3 0 5 2 5 1 3 1 16 4 0.250 SS 4 2 4 1 4 0 4 3 16 6 0.375 LF 4 2 5 2 4 1 4 1 17 6 0.353 CF 3 1 5 2 5 2 5 1 18 6 0.333 RF 5 1 1 0 4 1 3 1 13 3 0.231 Total 32 10 34 13 32 9 30 11 128 43 0.336 Just batting average, but a strong day up the middle. Not so much at the corners.

As a fan who's transitioned through the Brickhouse/Kupcinet, McConnell/Palmer (my favorites), Laravie/et.al, I can honestly say Joniak is the worst of the bunch. I like Thayer, but as a play by play man, Joniak is poor. His insistence on describing the play before stating out the outcome drives me nuts. When I'm stuck listening to him, I have to wait almost to the snap of the next play to find out it's 2nd and 5 or whatever. My belief is the play by play guy should state the play and the outcome and let the color guy then explain the details. I thought the Bears/WBBM went on the cheap to hire their news reader as the announcer instead of going out and finding a professional to take over. My neck hairs raise with his lame attempt to give out nicknames (Windy City Flyer?) or his signature Touchdown! Touchdown Bears! call. (On full disclosure, I also hate the stadium announcer's Timeout! Where?... call). But, I seem to be in the minority on this board as several people seem to like him. But just know it's not unanimous.

suzy kolber? Haha - hadn't thought of that, but I guess the similarities are deeper than I first considered!

Trivia: Who caught Joe Namath's last pass? My prediction: Tonight will lead to a similar trivia for someone in this game.

And thinking about it Sutter had the marketing advantage of a new pitch- a split fingered fastball. It got everyone interested to see what the heck he was doing. Maybe Marmol needs to name his slider something new and cool?

I'm with you. I noticed that as well and it can't be explained away by era since the 70's probably had a similar strikeout rate as today (guessing?). I just thought it was comparable in the way both made players look terrible when they missed. I think it also puts into perspective what Marmol is doing. The lack of national attention is a little maddening. Sutter had the baseball world talking when he showed up. Not so for Marmol. It could be WGN's reach back in the day.

You just missed this guy then: http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Bruce-Sutter.shtml The hitters had the same ugly, off balanced swing when he first showed up. The biggest difference in my eyes is that hitters routinely swung at pitches that were out of the zone. The cure from a hitter's standpoint was to learn to lay off and take the walk forcing him to come back into the zone. Sutter was hittable when he was in the zone if you guessed right. Marmol was operating the same way earlier. The sliders were well out of the zone and hitters couldn't hold up. But he becomes susceptible to the walk when hitters decide not to swing and see what happens. But, the biggest difference to me is that Marmol remains unhittable even when he is in the zone. When Gonzalez swung through a slider that ended up right in the heart of the plate, you knew the game was over. I get nervous when announcers start telling you a guys has been perfect or never misses, but Len started going through the stats right after that pitch and I found myself just nodding my head. He immediately fell behind the next batter but then started going right down the middle and struck Ludwick out. The fastball at the end was straight as an arrow and Ludwick still looked off balance on the swing.

So, how many guys have hit for the cycle in reverse order for the first four hits of their career?

Hmmm...and here I was thinking all along that thinking with your **** would only get you in trouble. This is a real paradigm shift.

Ask him about the Sam Fuld interview in BP. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9719 See how he interprets this section of the interview:

How do you view the changes to sports reporting over the last couple of decades? It seems in the past reporters had more access to players for independent reports. In the last several years, access seems much more restricted with every reporter getting the same post game interview we see on TV. Is the message much more controlled than in the past and how do you as a reporter try to get around being the standard bearer of the same message everyone else has? Are the Cubs better/worse/same as every other organization for access to their players and information? Many people here complain that we get misinformation on injuries as if it is of utmost importance to keep the fan abreast of the most critical information. How often are you privy to information that you can't share, and do you feel like there are good reasons for the request for confidentiality? I am a newspaper guy (a dying breed), but living in the city, I am a Trib guy. Not to talk out of school, but is Paul Sullivan really as depressing in real life as he writes?

And ya, Bobby Murcer...and older OF vs. young batting champion third baseman....hmmmm Madlock was in the wrong place at the wrong time. While he had good years, attendance was down. Sure he could hit, but was he putting people in the seats? Murcer was a throwback. He was Mantle's replacement and while he never lived up to the exploits on the field, he was everything the reporters and fans wanted in the locker room. Hell, he brought his own rocking chair to spin yarns with the reporters while he dressed. He was the epitome of the 50's and 60's idolized ballplayer. The theory was that he was the type of player that could put people in their seats. 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 Certainly, the Cubs hot start in 1977 put the jump into the attendance as much as anything else. And Dave Kingman in 1978 didn't hurt matters when he came on board. But, we all know Madlock would have only made those teams that much stronger. Had his contract issues came up at the end of 1977 instead of 1976, he would have been in a much stronger position and perhaps would have won out and become an icon on the North side for years to come.

I lived through the Cubs of the mid-60's. It was a heady time coming off what we thought at that time was a drought of epic proportions since the 1945 World Series. When there were only 8 teams in each league, going without a title for 20 yrs was a little embarrassing. As the team became good, many of the players became icons. Perhaps none bigger than Fergie. He was a consistent 20 game winner and the ace in a four man rotation. He was our answer to Gibson, Seaver, Marichal, etc. Several of the players from '69 were traded in the early 70's and that hurt as it signaled the end to the era. While some of the players traded were on their last legs and the return was minimal, the return for Jenkins had a higher expectation - Vic Harris and a throw in, Bill Madlock. Vic Harris was a dud from the start. Which sucked. But Madlock came out of nowhere and was a solid player. The team had nothing at that time and having Madlock get the winning hit in the all star game and leading the league in hitting was a huge shot in the arm. But, this was also the beginning of the free agents and players not being indentured servants to the owner. PK Wrigley had an expectation that players should be happy to be playing and getting paid. I don't remember the date, but he broke out of his recluse sports owner persona in time to write a letter to the Tribune in the early seventies to criticize everyone for not being Ernie Banks, who was happy to play two and acted like he didn't care if he got paid. Madlock wanted an increase. PK thought a player asking for a raise was unbecoming. Madlock's contract demands were not out of the realm for what he should have been paid, but I think PK was insulted the way it went down. The most disappointing thing was Murcer came back in the deal and was paid more than Madlock. But Murcer was at the end of his career and it was a terrible trade overall. As a Cubs fan, I nearly cried at the time and continued to moan every time he came up to bat in the playoffs in those ugly yellow and black uniforms. It was criminal. PK died one or two years after the deal.

maybe we can get some sort of frankenstein's monster right fielder. babe ruth's left arm and andre dawson's right arm and adam dunn's eyes (not because he's good at walking, just because they're dreamy) and barry bonds's steroids and so on. If that type of technology was available, surely Kerry Prior would have won a few Cy Youngs by now. http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1900202_1889488,00.html