Sammy Sofa

Byrd's really the only one that's stunk over most of June, but then you run into the issue of playing Colvin too much in CF. That's a strange statement to make. Byrd was definitely hotter in the first half of June and has slumped the second half. At the same time, he still has actually improved his season numbers in June. And he's definitely been better than the other two outfielders as Soriano has had a very bad month and Kosuke has had a horrific month albeit in limited playing time. I was just going primarily by their last two weeks. Byrd started off doing well, which is why he's got a kick ass .340 .386 .500 .886 line for the last 28 days. Unfortunately, he's got a .231 .259 .288 .548 line over the last 2 weeks and a .192 .222 .192 .415 over the last week. Soriano's last month has an underwhelming .227 .316 .409 .725 line, but he's basically pulling the opposite of Byrd with a .297 .366 .486 .852 line over the last 2 weeks and a very promising .278 .381 .556 .937 over the last week. That's why it makes more sense for Byrd to get some extra days off for Colvin, and that's why the issue of Colvin playing CF comes up. Colvin's June numbers, FYI, are mostly propped up by hitting home runs at an insane rate, hence why his June looks like this: .281 .303 .563 .866 with 5 home runs. The last 2 weeks he's pulled .243 .263 .514 .777 with 3 home runs. Now he's showing .227 .227 .500 .727 over the last week with 2 home runs.

Byrd's really the only one that's stunk over most of June, but then you run into the issue of playing Colvin too much in CF. I really just hope they play Kosuke and he has a nice bounce back summer like last year and they can move him in a decent deal. Then Colvin can get plenty of starts (not that he'll be lacking for playing time in the meantime).

This whole Africa tangent of J.R.'s is FJM.com-worthy.

Lou is baffling. Taking Byrd out and moving Colvin to center? Batting Nady against Dotel instead of Fotenot when lefties are hitting .333 off of him? Leaving Cashner out there for 2 innings and no sign of Marshall?

b/c what does 3 months with crap team that doesn't care tell you about a manager? All it does is give the Sandberg-lovers some evidence that Trammel won't do any good as manager. I don't think managers are sacred cows by any stretch. But the manager isn't going to improve the team in any way (in chances of making the playoffs, or in player development). And if giving Trammel the reins now would improve his chances of getting the gig full time, I'd support it. I just don't think that's true. Right. Turning the team over to Trammel does nothing except all but ensure that Trammel will have nothing to do with the team next season. I can't stand Lou, but the time when firing him might have made any kind of an impact on the team has passed. If it still happens before the end of the season, hey, I'm not complaining...but if it doesn't, oh well. The only thing I really want to see is Hendry fired after this season limps to a close. I'm hoping that happens sometime in September. Just to get a head start on bringing in the new guy. Oh, we can dream. At the very least I'd love to see him bounced out the door the day after the Cubs' regular season finishes. Or whenever they're mathematically eliminated.

b/c what does 3 months with crap team that doesn't care tell you about a manager? All it does is give the Sandberg-lovers some evidence that Trammel won't do any good as manager. I don't think managers are sacred cows by any stretch. But the manager isn't going to improve the team in any way (in chances of making the playoffs, or in player development). And if giving Trammel the reins now would improve his chances of getting the gig full time, I'd support it. I just don't think that's true. Right. Turning the team over to Trammel does nothing except all but ensure that Trammel will have nothing to do with the team next season. I can't stand Lou, but the time when firing him might have made any kind of an impact on the team has passed. If it still happens before the end of the season, hey, I'm not complaining...but if it doesn't, oh well. The only thing I really want to see is Hendry fired after this season limps to a close.

Around $130 million.

It's also a largely pointless move since the team is so bad and Lou's contract is up at the end of the year. Why saddle someone else with this team in the meantime? The interim manager would likely be Trammel, and unless the team has some kind of miracle turnaround, why scrap the team's ability to keep him on after Lou is gone if they and he want to?

zambrano yells at people in the dugout like three times a year, who cares. i won't try to justify his hr/9, but i don't really care too much about this sort of thing. I don't particularly care about it either, but there's really no defending it in any way. Yeah, he does it a lot...and most of the time he looks like an idiot. I'm not sitting here thinking he's some horrible person that needs to be "dealt with," but the "at least somebody is showing emotion" crap is dumb. He's showing emotion like a spazzy 5-year-old throwing a tantrum.

It's amusing how some people keep trying to find roundabout ways to justify Zambrano's actions. I don't care how bad the team is; what he did was inexcusable.

Hendry's extension happened under Zell and the Tribune in the fall of 2008.

Exactly. I'm ready to lay the hammer down in terms of criticizing if the Ricketts effectively do nothing this off season when it comes to getting rid of Hendry and other people that need to go in the front office, but until then I prefer this approach. I think an initial culling by a new ownership of the front office would have been stupid. I'm hoping this season is being spent determining who needs to stay and who needs to go instead just blindly dumping too many people and having to start from too far behind when it comes to rebuilding the front office. I also expected money to pretty tight the first year except in terms of starting work at Wrigley and if the Cubs had actually been decent and needed deadline help because they had a legitimate shot.

i really don't see a problem with it at all. Yeah, what a dumb spin. Wasn't it a charity dinner that had already been lined up for a while?

How do any of us know they're not going to do it?

DON'T BOTHER ME WITH THE DETAILS.

That makes no sense at all. Sure it does. I can understand people wanting him to be around for what's specifically gone down in the last 24 hours, but it's branched off into people basically saying that they want/need to see the owner all the time over the course of the season just because it's his first one as an owner. Why? It's such a whiny desire for something that's ultimately meaningless. People might as well be baying that they want to see Ricketts at all the games because it makes them feel warm and happy in their tummies; it's a desire for empty lip service/window dressing. If people simply want him to be more pro-active in situations like this, fine, but expecting him to just "be around" all the time is ridiculous. Who are these people of which you write? No one said they needed to see the owner all the time or that he had to be at every game. I don't think there's anything he could do to stop what has happened. But he could be the one to stop this from blowing out of proportion. Sending that [expletive] Randy Bush to talk the press today was a very bad idea. It's kind of hard to calm the situation from Africa. It's not like he went to Boca.. I'll ask again, did his sister also go on the trip? Tom is not the sole owner of the team, nor is he the only one involved in team operations.

That makes no sense at all. Sure it does. I can understand people wanting him to be around for what's specifically gone down in the last 24 hours, but it's branched off into people basically saying that they want/need to see the owner all the time over the course of the season just because it's his first one as an owner. Why? It's such a whiny desire for something that's ultimately meaningless. People might as well be baying that they want to see Ricketts at all the games because it makes them feel warm and happy in their tummies; it's a desire for empty lip service/window dressing. If people simply want him to be more pro-active in situations like this, fine, but expecting him to just "be around" all the time is ridiculous. I don't expect to see him in Pittsburgh. I would be shocked to see him in the front row in Opa Locka. I do think he should be present at two of the years' most high-profile series. Exactly what I'm talking about.

That makes no sense at all. Sure it does. I can understand people wanting him to be around for what's specifically gone down in the last 24 hours, but it's branched off into people basically saying that they want/need to see the owner all the time over the course of the season just because it's his first one as an owner. Why? It's such a whiny desire for something that's ultimately meaningless. People might as well be baying that they want to see Ricketts at all the games because it makes them feel warm and happy in their tummies; it's a desire for empty lip service/window dressing. If people simply want him to be more pro-active in situations like this, fine, but expecting him to just "be around" all the time is ridiculous.

Damn, Cubs fans are a bunch of needy bitches.

Wait, did the whole family go or just Tom? His sister is the co-owner and is also involved in the team's operations, so if only Tom went this is even less of a non-issue.

Or it "smacks" of a guy who has a life outside of the Cubs.

I just appreciate how he was begging for us all to get back on topic after he swerved it off topic as much as possible Very considerate.

What the [expletive] are you talking about. Do you seriously expect the owner of a sports team to be hanging around the team over the course of the entire season?

I'm pretty sure that's all GWB did. That and lie about WMD's. This golfing and basketball thing is catching up to Obummer too. That and dig our country into an abyss of obscene debt levels all while promising transparency yet allowing back room deals w/ politicians and lobbyists for healthcare reform. Talk about a lie. But lets get back to the topic please...thanks. Guess, let's please get back on topic after I go on a loopy rant using every pundit talking point in the book, thanks.

The amount of money a player makes doesn't change how productive he was. It helps determine whether or not the player was worth the contract (production vs salary), but it doesn't alter his level of productivity. But the question wasn't "was he worth his salary?". If a player is overpaid it doesn't create some arbitrary level where normally productive play is now suddenly viewed as unproductive or bad. "Well, normally that OPS would be pretty useful, but since you're paid $12 million it's not."