bring stone back

Well said....agree 100%.

I could make an educated guess based on his career production to date. What would you use to make your guess? So what you're saying is once you turn 26 years old, that's your peak offensively? No player has ever improved? Damn... Let's get a legitimate starting outfielder in left, a Loretta or Grud type at 2B next year and put Izturis in the 8 hole. I'm very comfortable having the best defensive shortstop in baseball being a below average hitter at #8.

OPS+ per season over first 4 years of career. Neifi 85 70 61 66 Cesar 52 61 88 68 Can you tell me what Izturis' will be the next 3 years? That's what I am really concerned about...

I don't get the link you're making between the 2 at all. What I'm saying is I'm sick of people that say "we can't rely on Wood or Prior at all" like they're not even part of the team and if they become the 4th or 5th starters...great. All while Prior and Wood account for roughly $18 million this year. How can you complain about our high payroll and lack of success when 20% of the payroll is always on the DL? You can be sure if I were the GM and I had $13 million wrapped up in one player I'd damn well be counting on him...how can you not be counting on these two when they acouunt for so much of your payroll? Our team's success is largely dependant on them. We can't look at these two as afterthoughts. They either have to produce like front-line starters or get rid of both of them. That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Most people would agree that having 2 pitchers like that hurt all the time is a major handicap, but what most also say is that in order to not rely on the pitching staff, you need a consistent offense. That's what people mean when they say that Hendry is stupid for putting all his eggs in the pitching staff. You have to have balance. I'll tie this all back into the Izturis subject, though: Having him on this team and planning on starting him and Cedeno in the middle IF means you have 2 positions where you will be below average offensively. That hurts your offense, which puts more pressure on the pitching staff that's always hurt. Who's to say Cedeno will definitely start at 2B next year? He'll play out the string this year but I am all for getting someone else and improving there. (I feel we kept the wrong 2B a couple years ago and should have kept Grud over Walker but that's just me).

I don't get the link you're making between the 2 at all. What I'm saying is I'm sick of people that say "we can't rely on Wood or Prior at all" like they're not even part of the team and if they become the 4th or 5th starters...great. All while Prior and Wood account for roughly $18 million this year. How can you complain about our high payroll and lack of success when 20% of the payroll is always on the DL? You can be sure if I were the GM and I had $13 million wrapped up in one player I'd damn well be counting on him...how can you not be counting on these two when they acouunt for so much of your payroll? Our team's success is largely dependant on them. We can't look at these two as afterthoughts. They either have to produce like front-line starters or get rid of both of them. That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Most people would agree that having 2 pitchers like that hurt all the time is a major handicap, but what most also say is that in order to not rely on the pitching staff, you need a consistent offense. That's what people mean when they say that Hendry is stupid for putting all his eggs in the pitching staff. You have to have balance. I'm responding to a question from another poster about a comment I made before so you'll have to direct the relevance to him...not me. I do think we have balance. Pierre didn't produce early and Lee went down and it killed our offense. We have Barrett, Lee, Ramirez and Jones...I'd take that quartet over a LOT of 3-6 in the NL. What has killed us this year is Ramirez and Pierre's slow starts and the black hole that is left field. Murton should not be starting in the major leagues.

Rusch, Jones and Neifi. He never claimed they paid for good talent. Rusch and Neifi are overpaid...yes. I feel that Jacque Jones is a good player and is producing this year. We may have paid a little over market value, but he's been one of our most consistent weapons offensively this year and has played well in right field. Don't throw Jacque in with those two...

Worth a shot, maybe, but not at 4.5 million. So what you are all really upset with is his contract then?

I don't get the link you're making between the 2 at all. What I'm saying is I'm sick of people that say "we can't rely on Wood or Prior at all" like they're not even part of the team and if they become the 4th or 5th starters...great. All while Prior and Wood account for roughly $18 million this year. How can you complain about our high payroll and lack of success when 20% of the payroll is always on the DL? You can be sure if I were the GM and I had $13 million wrapped up in one player I'd damn well be counting on him...how can you not be counting on these two when they acouunt for so much of your payroll? Our team's success is largely dependant on them. We can't look at these two as afterthoughts. They either have to produce like front-line starters or get rid of both of them.

Izturis will make about $4.5m next season and $5.5m in 2008. So we actually did lose money to spend. About...$4.5m worth. That adds up. Rusch + Neifi + Izturis is about $10m in waste. If we just had Izturis, it would be one thing. Together, the three of them take up more than 10% of our payroll. That's ridiculous. Why are fans so concerned about payroll? I'm pretty sure you're not the one cutting the checks and the guys who are seemed comfortable with the move so what's the problem? It's not like we're the Marlins or the Rays and have fire sales every 3 years. Management has proven they'll pay for talent. I highly doubt these contracts will stop us from going after a Soriano or a Lee next year.

All-star shortstop? Not in my books. That's a title that doesn't tell the whole story. Izturis, aside from his glove isn't really good. He's a Neifi clone. Except he's 10 years younger with a chance to improve at the plate. He's worth a shot.

Is there a serious analyst out there not panning Hendry for this deal? The writers for the Trib? Oh wait, serious analyst. Like Rob Neyer? Maybe he can write a book about it....

As a fan, you're really concerned about giving up the $2 million? We're not the Devil Rays or Marlins. If a move comes along you believe in...you gotta pay it. (I laugh when I hear fans say look at our payroll and how bad we are YET say we can't depend on Wood and Prior anymore. Fine, if that's the case, then don't give me the payroll argument. The two of them are getting maybe $18 million this year mostly on the DL. It's one or the other). Nobody has ever recovered from Tommy John surgery? The guy is 26 and was having a career year before an injury. He's still young and with more at bats I'd like to think his bat will improve. What I am saying is I'd rather have Izturis than a couple of mid-level prospects. It's worth it to bring him in and see what happens.

I know many of you didn't like the Izturis trade but I didn't think it wasn't bad at all. Here are my reasons: 1. Coletti has stated publicly that this was in the works for nearly a month and Hendry wanted two prospects that Coletti just would not give up for Maddux. For those who say Hendry gave up the opportunity to get Kemp and Guzman type players for Izturis are wrong. For Lugo...yes, but obviously not Maddux or this trade would have been made some time ago. 2. Maddux is old, would likely not have resigned with us and frankly not good (forget the sentimental attachment). 3. Maddux serves absolutely no purpose to us now. We as fans have already written off this season and now management has, too. It's time we give Hill, Marmol and Marshall starts every 5th day to try to figure out what we have for next year and try to instill some confidence in them going into the Spring. 4. We're getting a young shortstop who has been to one All-Star game already and many recognize as one of the best defensive shortstops in baseball. If he continues to develop at the plate, we could have a fixture at shortstop for years to come while giving up essentially nothing but a name and a memory of what he used to be. 5. Hendry was hamstrung from the get-go of who he could send Maddux to because of his short list of teams he'd agree to go to. Don't think for a second those approved teams didn't know that and use that as leverage against Hendry. I know some of you who subscribe to the Rob Neyer school of baseball will point to his OPS and say he sucks, but he's shown flashes at the plate. As he continue to get more at bats, I hope that improves but you can't just rate every player and acquisition by his OPS and I feel are vastly underrating his defense, especially when he's playing next to Ramirez and what it brings to the psyche of a pitcher. Agree or don't agree but bringing in Izturis wasn't much of a risk at all and the potential upside is well worth it. I can recall many on this board not too long ago saying we aren't fundamentally sound on defense and Cedeno was known for his defense but it often times doesn't look like it. Well....we made a change to adress those concerns so let's see how it works out.

At no point did I say it was impossible. What I did say is that it is very hard to recognize. I really like how you take one thing I say and take it to the extreme without actually reading the post. Well done.... Yea, its hard. otherwise we'd all be in the major leagues, eh? What do you have to say to the statistics posted on the page before?

That's why I specified unintentional walks. Even if that were true, though, Boston and the Yankees have nearly double the Cubs' number of unintentional walks. Even when you take league difference into account, they're clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum. I know, but there are times when Ortiz and Ramirez is up and the pitcher may try to throw a perfect pitch early and if they don't get ahead in the count, they'll do the old "intentional, unintentional walk."

At no point did I say it was impossible. What I did say is that it is very hard to recognize. I really like how you take one thing I say and take it to the extreme without actually reading the post. Well done....

Boston and the Yankees are among the Major League leaders in unintentional walks. Do you think the presence of players like A-Rod, Jeter, Ortiz, Ramirez, etc. help that number? Maybe they're pitching around these guys while the Cubs really have nobody to pitch around right now.

But the great hitters do it better than the bad hitters. therefore its something to strive for - if you can't recognize pitches, you will not be a major league hitter. Have you ever hit in the major leagues? Just because something is difficult does not mean its not the right approach or goal. and btw, the condescending tone adds nothing to your arguments. My condescending tone? Yet you try to get real tough with your "I'm not looking up anything for you." I have not hit in the major leagues but have hit against pitchers who have played in the major leagues at a fairly high level. You get maybe 3/10 of a second to recognize ball vs. strike. It's far too simplistic to say go up there and swing only if you can hit the ball hard. Put a good swing on a pitch you think you can is all you can do. "real tough"? - LOL, whatever. Look up your own stats or continue to be ignorant. Basically you know you're wrong so you try to diminish the statistics that will prove you wrong before they are posted. I don't think its simplistic at all. That's how you become a great hitter -you recognize pitches you can hit and lay off the others. Yes, since everything in baseball can simply be put into statistics, right? The problem with your logic is that you're using great hitters as your benchmark. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of them in all of baseball. Like I said before, it's not that easy and if it were, everyone would hit over .350.

Oh cool. Personal insults to attempt to win a debate. How original. =D> yes, since that was a personal attack directed towards you personally. It's my opinion that you can believe whatever you want to believe. If you believe that the best way to score runs is to have all 9 guys in the line up bunt every time up, more power to you. You can share your opinion that the current Cubs approach to hitting is the best way to score runs, but the standings, the stats and the durability of the opposing pitcher seems to dictate that this is not the case. Do you have some sort of evidence that aggressive hitting actually produces winning results? I really hope that it's just an aberration that the Cubs will eventually score 10 runs a game with this aggressive approach they preach. Instead, I see shut outs and 1 run games, and I'm tired of them. I want them to put patient hitters that have a high on base success rate. To me, the aggressive approach isn't working. What is your evidence that it is working? I can't use the Cubs as the prototype. I'd consider the Yankees and Red Sox pretty aggressive and it seems to work well for them. Let's just get better hitters. Problem solved....world series here we come.

Oh cool. Personal insults to attempt to win a debate. How original. =D> yes, since that was a personal attack directed towards you personally.

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on. Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence? Do you think Jeff Francoeur is a good hitter? He's a notorious first pitch swinger. Have you seen his average? Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

A lot of that pitch count has to do with our pitchers being primarily strikeout pitchers and our burning desire to walk 5-6 hitters a game.

And sometimes it was a pitch you shouldn't have swung at in the first place. You're absolutely right...sometimes that happens. If they do take it, foul off another and before you know it, they're pretty much screwed at 0-2 or 1-2. I still feel this was Patterson's problem and why I felt it was dumb to get rid of him. He was too scared at the plate last year and swung at anything just so he didn't get behind the count in fear of a strikeout. His problems were mental and nothing an offseason away from baseball couldn't help.

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on. Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence? Do you think Jeff Francoeur is a good hitter? He's a notorious first pitch swinger.

But the great hitters do it better than the bad hitters. therefore its something to strive for - if you can't recognize pitches, you will not be a major league hitter. Have you ever hit in the major leagues? Just because something is difficult does not mean its not the right approach or goal. and btw, the condescending tone adds nothing to your arguments. My condescending tone? Yet you try to get real tough with your "I'm not looking up anything for you." I have not hit in the major leagues but have hit against pitchers who have played in the major leagues at a fairly high level. You get maybe 3/10 of a second to recognize ball vs. strike. It's far too simplistic to say go up there and swing only if you can hit the ball hard. Put a good swing on a pitch you think you can is all you can do.