goonys evil twin

Why do I keep leaving the MyFi at home?

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060328cubsgrissom,1,6318210.story?coll=cs-home-headlines "I'm at peace with myself," Grissom said. "I feel like the whole world has been lifted from my shoulders." An emotional Wellemeyer was sad to leave the organization. "I love the guys on the team and have been a Cubs fan my whole life," he said. "But I think this is for the better."

I hate HOF debates. I don't really care one way or the other. And I'm going to stay out of it. I'm not making an argument for or against. It just seems to me that if Bags makes it, there are a few others with similar numbers whose cases would have to be taken a bit more seriously.

Wait, where are you getting the idea this is the case? Signing Rusch, the talks of acquring another starter all offseason long, the reluctance to put him in the rotation last year, the rumors of how expendable they viewed him all offseason. It's like they thought Aardsma was the key cog to the Hawkins deal. I wouldn't say the Rusch signing means they are obsessed with getting Williams out of there. They like Glendon's versatility, much in the same way they liked Macias. They should have gotten another starter, and even if they did Williams could be in-line for a job. I just think they want him to keep going out there and earning a job. I believe they think he has somewhat of a motivation problem. Whereas they aren't concerned with Rusch letting up if he knows he has a job, they probably don't trust Williams to be a responsible guy if guaranteed a spot. But I think they really like him and plan on using him.

I'm not quite sure how trading Wellemeyer to the Marlins is indicative of the team's desire to win. I said that because this team's cutting the obvious trash right out the gate, and not doing stupid things like keep someone around because of running out of options. That's indicative of a different franchise attitude. Wellemeyer looked abysmal all spring. He needed to go. I hope that means Grissom is gone. Too bad they won't cut Jones lose. I guess I can buy that Jake. At least, I think it means they are making better decisions. It seems they were too worried in the past about using minor league options, veteran status, guaranteed contracts, etc for personel decisions. I'm not sure it really means they "mean business now", or they have a bigger "desire to win". But it could be a different mindset. Hopefully this line of reasoning extends to the Grissom decision, and maybe down the line, moves revolving more around performance on the field rather than tenure and status.

I'm not quite sure how trading Wellemeyer to the Marlins is indicative of the team's desire to win. But it's a good thing they won't be tempted to keep him around just based ono his options status. I hate when teams make personel decisions based on non-baseball factors. Todd has some interesting stuff, but he walks far too many, and gets rocked from time to time. Good luck to him. Hopefully one of these guys can turn into a reliever down the road. With Florida trading for so many prospects, I could actually see them start trading some of these guys for players like Wellemeyer (minimum wage guys with major league experience).

Yes. He should be in the Hall, regardless of being shy of 500. If Bags gets in, it has to open the door for a lot of other marginal guys.

I think the quote is just referring to the benefit of him having options, and not necessarily weighing in on the 12 man staff. But with the Cubs history of wasting space with a man in the bullpen who can sit for 2 weeks at a time, that's not a bad assumption to make.

Wait, where are you getting the idea this is the case?

I'm very concerned about the lack of ABs for Lee. The injury just makes things worse. Of course he has to make sure he's 100%, and the rest helps that. But when they said all the extra work in spring training helped him last year, they left open the idea that the lack of work will hurt him this year. It remains to be seen of course. But coming off a career year, starting the year with an injury, and having very little work are three things that have to cause concern. With Barrett I'm not so sure it matters. He's a catcher. He's used to somewhat irregular work patterns. He's used to playing banged up. He's probably going to be very similar to how he was last year.

I don't want to take him out of the rotation. But I'm not sure I'd qualify him as an established quality pitcher. He's got some quality innings under his belt, but he's had mixed results. Based strictly on upside, both Marshall and Guzman surpass Williams, who, if all goes right, will be a decent middle of the rotation guy. He's not lights out, never has been and never will. I'd give him the spot to start the season, and bump Rusch out. Give Marshall the 4th spot (or whatever you want to call it), and then have Hill or Guzman take the 5th spot when it's needed in mid-April. Whenever Wood, Miller and/or Prior show that they are ready (with solid minor league outings), then these guys can be sent back to the minors.

You really have to get over your hangup with spring stats. They are meaningless. They mean nothing. They don't tell you a thing about a pitcher or hitter. I beg to differ when you are talking about guys getting the last pitcher spot on the roster or the last bench spot. Historically, the guys who did better in spring training were better in the majors at that particular point in time. Where are you coming up with this? Historically, some incredibly mediocre players have had amazing spring training results, and some very solid contributors have stunk up the joint. Spring training results are meaningless. Not only is the sample size way to small to pass judgement, the level of competition varies widely, the conditions are far from ideal, bodies are not in regular season game shape, the intensity is just not there, and the outcomes don't matter. Spring training stats are meaningless.

You really have to get over your hangup with spring stats. They are meaningless. They mean nothing. They don't tell you a thing about a pitcher or hitter.

Pagan making it over Grissom is fine by me. But pretending Pagan's spring is in anyway indicative of what he's capable of in the regular season is just plain unrealistic. Spring training results, especially ones that are out of line with career numbers, are meaningless. Assuming Hairston is the starter and 2nd and Walker is still around, I'd like to see the bench like this: Blanco Neifi Walker Mabry Pagan Restovich The IF is covered, the OF is covered. Walker is a good LH bat. Mabry might be a decent LH bat. Restovich is your only RH threat. With 4 starters the first couple weeks, there is no need to even consider using 12 pitchers. Once the 5th starter gets his first action mid-month, you should be fine with 6 relievers. Any time you need an extra arm you call somebody up from AAA and send down whichever kid gets the nod. If Ryu is the long man out of the pen to start the season, he can go to AAA if/when Marshall or Guzman gets called up for 5th starter duty.

He usually just starts slow. Unfortunately, we need to at least tred water until Wood/Prior/Miller arrive. Well, I like Guzman and Marshall but they both walk too many guys. I don't know if I like the idea of both of them in the rotation at the same time. If that's your criteria, then you'd probably want both Guzman and Marshall over Williams. Jerome has walked 3.34 per 9 innings in the majors. Marshall is at 2.50 as a pro, while Guzman is at 2.22.

Rozner and Bruce are from the same paper though, so unless there is no communication between the two, Dusty may have had a change of heart. Rozner is a columnist writing opinion pieces. I don't know one way or the other, but I'd be surprised if there was a change of heart and Rozner suddenly has some inside scoop about the great rookie infusion of 2006.

I'd go this way as well. You can't knock out Williams because of bad spring results. They don't mean anything. Williams, even when he's on, gives up his fair share of long fly ball outs. Those go out of Hohokam in March, but not necessarily Wrigley in April. You have to base it off of a longer track record than just spring training. Rusch's career tells you it's best if you find somebody to take his place. Williams can still be a viable option.

In fairness, I included the injury caveat when I first proposed the bet. Also, if Spivey doesn't play, that doesn't count as an injury. And unlike Vance's bet, mine only refers to Spivey, it doesn't include any other player at 2nd. I don't see what's so "weak" about this bet. Vance, do I owe you a hat if Spivey is released outright or traded (could be a very realistic possibility) or is the bet off? It's weak because you included it. If you believe he can do it, make the bet without any escape hatches. Live a little. I mean, it's only a hat.

I have to say, this "caveat" garbage is some of the weakest gambling I've seen in my life. You don't make bets about production but then say it doesn't count if the guy's season is injury marred. What if he is a little banged up, but healthy enough to play, and is held out anyway because he sucks? What if he's really hurt, but plays almost everyday anyway? Suck it up and place your bets, don't look for escape hatches.

He'd look really good with a baseball imbedded in his earhole. No, he'd just look like an ugly guy with a baseball imbedded in his earhole.

I tend to think there isn't one need, and that this season isn't going to "come down to" anything in particular. The Cubs lost too many games last year for a variety of reasons. They came up short in 2004 for many of the same reasons. The Cubs can win if both Prior and Wood miss significant time. It'll just take lots of Z, as well as solid Maddux, improved Williams and some help from the kid pitchers. If the pitching is okay, but not great, they can win if the offense picks it up. Likewise, if the offense stays stagnant, it doesn't mean they can't make it. Hendry had lots of options to improve this team because it had lots of need for improvement. Of course, they could still get great pitching and miss the playoffs, or take an enormous leap with the offense and still make some noice. There isn't a cure all out there for this team, and there isn't one area that will determine their success. Obviously certain things can take more precedence than others. But it still comes down to overall production of the hitters and pitchers, and not just one area of the team. They need lots of things to go right to have a good year, but they can also find success if a few go wrong.

Enough with this crap already. It's not pessimism to suggest Matt Murton probably won't start 162 games in LF, and that whoever does replace him from time to time will be even worse. There's no way Ronny starts 162, or anywhere close to that number. It doesn't matter how often they play in the spring, these guys aren't playing everyday. And unless Ronny has a fabulous year in the OBP dept (something his pro career would seem to contradict), it wouldn't take many games for bad Neifi to drag the overall SS OBP down significantly. Why don't you try not telling me what I would write, and just read what I actually did write. 26 is the typical peak year. 26-28 is prime time. Barrett is 29, Lee is 30. Both are coming off career years. Typically, careers years in the late 20's aren't followed by repeat career years. Most everybody I've ever heard discuss Lee this year is expecting some sort of drop off. So instead of making up BS about my unbridled pessimism and supposed anti-Cubs sentiment, maybe you should take a freaking second to look at the facts with these guys. Lee's OBP was more than .050 points over his average last year, more than .060 points over his previous season, and about .045 above the previous three year average. If he falls to a .400 OBP, that would still be way over where anybody would have thought he'd be going into 2005. Predicting such a number would hardly be considered pessimistic. I think he's probably going to be around .390-.395. Although I'm a little concerned that with all the time off he's had this spring, the so-called extra early work bounce he got for 2005 will be missing. Regardless, if he's just down to .400 (and plays everyday), that's still a .017 point drop from the 2005 Cubs. In other words, it probably takes away a big chunk of what you could realistically hope Murton would improve upon. As for Barrett, I'm not predicting major decline or anything. I think that the guy is probably going to be a little worse in 2006, but probably still among the best hitting catchers in the NL, if not the best. ...yes it is. my entire post, and the post I was responding to, was about obp. if you want to get caught up in whether the guy gets on base via walk or basehit, that's your perogative. I don't particularly care as long as the obp's are at the level expected. as for weaknesses, show me a team with less than a $200M payrol that doesn't have offensive weaknesses. perhaps that statement is a reflection of your unrealistic high expectations of what a team should be. Finally, even if you are correct in that the only position the Cubs will see improvement in obp is center, that's still a huge improvement considering that the Cubs leadoff hitters obp was .299 last year. The post you responded to, or at least the part you quoted, didn't mention a thing about OBP. Whether you care or not, walks are a vital aspect of OBP. And OBP that relies heavily on AVG is much more susceptible to dropoffs than one that relies on a steady stream of bases on balls. And I never said CF was the only position that would improve. I said it's the only position that is almost a guarantee for significant improvement. Of course others could improve as well. But they aren't guarantees. Anyway, it's not about not having any weaknesses. It's about fielding the best team possible. And it's pretty clear that through several years of inefficent utilization of resources the Cubs are not fielding the best team possible. They have lots of weaknesses, and many problems that have been problems year after year. If you think expecting the Cubs to be a 90+ win team most every year is unrealistic expectations, then I don't see the point in discussing the issue. I think the Cubs should win a world series. I don't view back to back +.500 seasons as success. Why don't you spend less time trying to carry out your personal vendetta against me and more time having an actual discussion about these issues. I don't care who you are, you shouldn't care who I am. We're obviously both Cubs fans. We have different opinions about what guys are likely to do this year. Get over it.

Is he the only one who has made a one pitch out today? Probably not, that's a Cubs specialty. Aggressiveness at all costs just hurts the team.

Typically it is assumed that the GM sets the majority of his roster, but the manager gets to make final decisions on role players and bench guys, based on what he thinks he needs. Of course, the GM could overrule, and with the superstar GMs that probably happens. But for the most part, managers get to decide things like going with an extre bullpen arm or 6 bench players, and who the 25th man will be. Or at least he can make requests to the GM, who would be expected to fulfill those requests unless he wants to read about some internal controversies in the next day's paper.

Did Hairston's brutal defensive effort against Texas Friday night get any mention this weekend?