goonys evil twin

good one.

You take that back. I actually see the possibility for improvement with Aardsma. Whether or not there is a chance that he can improve, it doesn't change the fact that he is crap. His ERA is about 6.

I don't think it answers the Cubs' offensive woes. They could bring in a defensive catcher, but most defensive catchers are just that defensive catchers. So they would essentially take Barrett's offensive production and move it to left field (where it doesn't look as good as it does at catcher) and find a catcher who will provide very little offensively. And not to mention most likely make LF an adventure defensively. What he said. If you want to put Barrett in LF, fine, go ahead, but you better improve the offense elsewhere, because this would just hurt the lineup, as whatever defensive catcher you get is going to be worse than whatever LF Barrett is replacing.

You're such a pessimist, it's not over.

Who says stability is a problem with this team.

The chances for a sweep are getting slim, along with the chance to set a new high water mark.

Aardsman and Novoa are absolute crap.

The only explanation I got is injury. Otherwise, Dusty was just trying to be cute in a desperate attempt to beat LaRussa with some crazy strategy because he felt his bullpen was all rested up.

The Cubs could easily afford to sign Dusty Baker to a 10 year $50 million contract, that doesn't make it a smart move. If you're dying of thirst in the desert, and someone offers you an ice cold water bottle for $100, is it a dumb move to "overpay"? Not if there's a guy two feet away who will set it to you for $5.

He would have been fine if Dusty just pulled him after two. Don't know why you try and get a middle reliever to go that long the day after an off day.

I don't think we can get anywhere talking about the fear of the 2-strike count and getting over that fear. Harvey is a free swinger. He's employed by a team that preaches an overly aggressive approach. He's not going to suddenly turn into a patient hitter.

This Izturis kid shows a lot of promise.

I'm well aware of the differences. However, both are rookies with limited experience in the big leagues. The Cubs are going to get inconsistent outings from both at this point; neither is a guarantee to go out there and pitch 6 good innings. However, if we go into next season with a rotation of Z-Schmidt or Zito-Prior-Young Guy #1-Young Guy #2, I'm not liking the Cubs' chances. Health problems could inevitably lead to one or two more rookie SPs coming into the rotation at some point. I like the potential and the depth the Cubs have at SP right now, but we don't know what to expect out of those young guys in terms of consistency. Getting a halfway decent #3/#4 guy along with some one like Zito or Schmidt would go a long, long way. While the offense has had its share of problems, getting a strong pitching staff would make life a lot easier for everyone involved. I wasn't addressing your idea about acquiring 2 arms. I was just refuting the insinuation that they were the same player. Guzman should be starting now to get past that "he's an inconsistent rookie" phase as quickly as possible. There's a chance he could be a solid starter next year. Marmol doesn't really stand much of a chance to be a good starter in 2007.

I don't think you can justify trying to fix this team by signing Sheffield at 38, coming off an injury marred season, which followed another season when he was banged up and had his worst numbers in several years.

Marmol hit and was then pulled?

Guzman really should be the one getting those starts. I don't know if it really matters though, I guess. Six in one, half dozen in the other. This is why the Cubs absolutely have to sign/trade for two veteran starting pitchers in the offseason. Just getting Jason Schmidt or Barry Zito won't be enough, imo. Marmol and Guzman are not one in the same. Marmol is relatively new to pitching and needs to build up innings before anything can be expected of him. Guzman needs to pitch in the majors so the Cubs can find out what he has to offer.

The question is how well his glove hits with 2 outs.

The most important group of men to ever gather in pursuit of the same cause are currently beating the second most important group of men to ever gather in pursuit of the same cause 1-0.

I would say he's the leader in the clubhouse at this point.

The Cubs could easily afford to sign Dusty Baker to a 10 year $50 million contract, that doesn't make it a smart move.

I do concede that he could improve, but he is not likely to improve. It doesn't make sense to look at a 26 year old who sucked as a minor leaguer and has sucked as a major leaguer and say he is likely to improve upon what he has already done. He could, he might, it's possible, but it's not likely. Being a GM is about giving your team the best chances to win, not building your team on a bunch of long odds. Maybe you'll look like a genius if everything works out for the best, but you have to assume setbacks, and build your team to withstand them. You don't acquire bad players and expect them to get better.

Everything I've read says that 26 is peak age. 26-29 is typically peak time frame, and guys will on occasion have career years later in life. But expecting a player to be significantly better than he already is at 26 is unwise, especially when that player has been the same terrible player each and every year of his professional career. He's shown absolutely no signs that he's capable of more. I think a 600 OPS is probably low, although I haven't noticed many people writing that as his peak. I think 650 is probably more likely, maybe a bump up to 675 or possibly 700 some year, but all of that is still god awful. Exactly..he is at the start of his peak age, exactly as Tiger stated-he's entering the prime of his career. He's been terrible throughout his career, but he definitely hasn't been the same at age 22-.232/.253/.303 at age 23-.251/.282/.315 (29 point jump in OBP, and 12 point jump in slugging) age 24-.288/.330/.381 (48 point jump in OBP, and a 66 point jump in SLG) age 25 is a completely washed out year because of the injuries-optimists will point out his .342/.388/.425 numbers in April and May, while others will look at the entire injury filled season as a downgrade of .257/.302/.322 (notice-I am not comparing him to Lee's production here-but looking at this season's overall numbers is like looking at Lee's 2006 numbers so far-the numbers with the injury and the numbers without the injury are dramatically different) age 26-Overall-.259/.314/.341-with a bad BABIP He may still not even be close to an average major league hitter, but he hasn't been consistently the same. He was a shortstop brought up only for his defense whose bat consistently got better before he got hurt-and now we will have to see if he can continue to get better as he enters his prime. You are grossly exagerating the improvement he's had. His OPS+ has been as follows for ages 21-25: 69 52 61 88 68 That's a career average of 69, with one downside outlier and one upside outlier. He's not poised for a breakout and he's not "likely to improve". We have probably seen the best we will see out of him, and it was probably that 88 in 2004. His injury is not a free pass to pretend he's capable of more, it's a pretty good sign that he will never be the best he could have been if he was always 100% healthy. The average peak year is 26, it can be 24/25, or 28/29, and a guy can pull a career year out of his butt at 32. But it's incorrect to state that he is likely to improve from what he already is, because he is already in his most likely peak time frame. The most likely scenario is that he will stay within the range he has already established as a major leaguer, which varies from absolute crap to just bad.

I thought this was a really good post that got lost in the shuffle. I agree with this completely. From playing through pee-wee to little league and so forth...defense is horribly important. You'd have th 3-4 really good players on your team that would be put in some of the main defensive spots, and they were also usually your best hitters. Everybody else usually was unable to really play defense all that well and that was why it was constantly practiced. It gets in your mindset then that since you practice it so much, it is the most important thing. Until you hit college ball. Excellent points. The difference between the typical defender, the above average defender and the below average defender is just not that big in major league baseball. The worst of the bunch are weeded out before ever coming up here, unless they are absolute superstars with the bats. There is a significant difference between the best of the best and the worst of the worst, but it's not anywhere close to that difference in the minors, college, high school or lower. If you get to the majors as a shortstop, odds are you are pretty darn good as a defender. You might not be as good as many others, but it's not that big of a gap.

Going through baseballreference.com and comparing age/OPS+, it really is amazing how many guys peak at 25, 26 or 27, take a dip back, then pop back up to that level later on. Some will actually surpass that mark, but not by much. Some will actually take a big step forward later, like Joe Morgan, who was better in his early 30's than he was in his mid to late 20's. One thing that is pretty common as well is finding guys whose careers featured significant injury issues, they appear to be most common among the peak at 25 or 26 crowd, then dip back below. Izturis has major injury issues clouding his career, and he's been consistently poor year in and year out, with a peak toward mediocrity at 24. I'd say it's almost a lock he won't get any better than he's already been in his career, at least not for any extended period of time, ie 2+ years.

Everything I've read says that 26 is peak age. 26-29 is typically peak time frame, and guys will on occasion have career years later in life. But expecting a player to be significantly better than he already is at 26 is unwise, especially when that player has been the same terrible player each and every year of his professional career. He's shown absolutely no signs that he's capable of more. I think a 600 OPS is probably low, although I haven't noticed many people writing that as his peak. I think 650 is probably more likely, maybe a bump up to 675 or possibly 700 some year, but all of that is still god awful.