cbbryan

This is the same Jim Hendry who said that Sammy Sosa would be the CUBS' right fielder in 2005, no? It just occurred to me that Hendry may be preventing Dusty from turning him into the bad guy, as Baker did w/Sabean and the Giants. Who knows. At this point, it's all PR posturing. No side is going to go after the other.

How is Pedro clearing waivers? And Posada? If a team claims them and the Mets/Yankees don't pull them back, the claiming team would be stuck with a lot of money for a lot of years. Posada: http://www.all-baseball.com/bronxbanter/archives/012096.html Pedro: http://kffl.com/player/4843/mlb It's alot of money to Pedro, but I'll take him.

How is Pedro clearing waivers? And Posada?

Soul.........you put all this on Hendry, but Hendry was a big part of the 2003 team and putting it together. Even when MacPhail was GM, Hendry was in the background. So, I don't understand how you have so much confidence in Hendry not being able to get us back to 2003, but he helped us get to that in the first place. Why couldn't he do it again? Secondly, I still haven't heard anyones response to my earlier post. If your point is that Hendry hired Baker, so Hendry should be fired for Baker's shortcomings as a manager.............why aren't you calling for MacPhail's head? It would go hand in hand with your opinion that Hendry's as much to blame as Baker. My point is that people in any job should be promoted, or fired based on merit. If you're not doing your job, you get fired. If you're doing your job, your safe. While Hendry may be to blame for hiring Dusty, he's certainly doing a better job in other facets of his job. You can't make the same argument for Dusty.

Understood. Although, as I have been saying, if you hire a manager who can't get the job done, then at some point that also has to come back on you. I'm not saying that Hendry doesn't deserve any blame. I'm just saying that Baker deserves more because he dictates who plays and how players are utilized. I think that if Baker manages this team next year and we see the same results, Hendry will hit the bricks w/ Baker. Again, though. Baker has done a much worse job doing his job then Hendry. If Hendry corrects the problem...........he could save his job. If he doesn't correct the problem and continues to let Dusty manage this team into next year, then I would be in agreement that he would be gone. One more thing...........just curious to know how everyone feels. If one argues that Hendry hired Baker, thus Hendry should be fired, or at least held accountable to the extent that Baker is...............what about MacPhail? Should MacPhail be under the gun because he hired Hendry and Hendry hired Dusty, or do we simply judge who gets fired by how they perform their major responsibilities w/ the team?

How true is that! They have been terrible.

Except that there's no way Baker would come here for anything less than four years. And Jim Hendry wanted him badly enough to give it to him. Right. So again: how is Hendry escaping the axe? I never hear any media on his case, nobody ever examines the endless train of bad moves he has made to get us in this position, the incredible ignorance of players who were obviously not capable of staying injury free, the blind seeking of Dusty Baker without knowing anything about his lack of actual managerial skills. In my view this whole debacle rests right at the feet of one Mr. Jim Hendry. Every season has been worse than the last. Every year a deeper nightmare. Sure he made a couple good moves in 2003. Good for him. GM's with TALENT make great moves every single season. Witness Jocketty and Beane. Hendry couldn't touch their jock straps. It's time for Hendry to go back to running the minor leagues and bring in an actual talented GM. That's a completely unfair assessment. What "endless train of bad moves"? Alfonseca, Estes, Maddux, and not getting full value for Sosa (he was obviously put in a bad spot) is all I count. There are plenty more good than bad moves. You can't honestly complain about the trades he's made. You can't complain about the FA signings too much, especially in light of the money and years the non-Cubs have received. Oh come on. Unfair assessment? The Garciaparra signing---everyone knew he would be injured for the season. If you didn't, then you weren't seeing him objectively. No closer-----NO CLOSER. No middle relief of consequence. Keeping Remlinger. Keeping Macias on the team. Thinking Neifi was the answer if Nomar went down. Hollandsworth. Clement. CLEMENT! Add those to your list. It's been all downill since '03, my fellow Cub fan. And Hendry has been at the center of it all. To a certain point, I agree. I think there have been questionable moves on Hendry's part. I don't know that everyone "knew" that Garciaparra was going to be hurt.........how do you project a torn groin? I think for what was on the market, 8.25 million was a tad too high. I would have rather gone after Renteria...........I don't know that he'd have been any better at this point (w/ the exception that he's actually played.). Neifi was signed to be a utility guy in my mind. Again, they didn't project, nor can you project that Nomar would be out w/ a serious injury for that long. Neifi wasn't suppose to be in the starting line-up that often. Macias is awful and shouldn't see the field once a week. I'm a bit frustrated that he has a roster spot. Remmy was old and not used properly. I can't say that I was that upset when he was signed though. He was old, but I thought he'd contribute more then he did. The one thing I will agree w/ you on is Clement. I'm usually pretty upset if a prospect that I like ends up on another team and does well.............ala Sisco and we get nothing in return. I wouldn't have anything against the trading of Willis for Clement (I know Alf and Taverez were involved too.), but when you make a trade like that...............YOU HAVE TO SIGN CLEMENT. You don't trade Willis and then let Clement go. I know that it would have been tough to keep him "with-in the budget," but it would have only been for this year that you'd been alittle over what you wanted to spend. Other then that trade, I've actually like his other moves and I'd like that move if Clement was still a Cub. Hendry can give Baker all the ingredients for success............Baker's gotta make it work on the field and he just plain hasn't gotten it done.

Draft is tonight at 9 Eastern. I need 5 players! Send me an e-mail if you're interested and I'll send you an invite.

:lol: That's hilarious!!!!

Soto is the AAA catcher. He's quite young(22) and has a great walk rate at Iowa. His power has been nonexistent to this point however. Another year in AAA, and I'd like to see him replace Blanco as the backup C. Fontenot is not strictly a 2B. He's logged a bit of time at 3B, and I even saw him at SS in the Iowa box score recently. Huh? I went to alot of ICub games last year when Dubois was there, but I didn't recognize those guys. I realize they may not have been there. I didn't realize how much I enjoyed and was spoiled by the ICubs until I left Iowa. It was kind of nice to drive down from Ames on a regular basis and catch a game for less then $10. Although, I can go check out the Springfield Cardinals anytime now! LOL!

I was just looking at the Cubs 40 man roster............some are alittle puzzling to me. Who's Geovany Soto? His numbers don't look great. Richard Lewis Mike Fontenot 2 minor league 2B both on the 40 man............is that normal? Just seemed odd to me.

I think it's pretty speculative for Stone to say the Red Sox "didn't like" Murton. Perhaps they just did what they felt they needed to do to achieve a short-term goal: finishing a huge deal that put pieces in place that were considered necessary to contend for a World Series. And that short-term goal worked out pretty well. I like Murton for the future because he's so outside the mold of the "typical" Cubs hitter. I could actually see him being sort of Grace-esque in the future at the plate; contact hitter for average, good amount of walks, lots of doubles, power numbers are gravy. Maybe (?) we'll find out some day for sure. You'll probably never know exactly what the Red Sox thought about Murton for sure. He's not Babe Ruth or anything, but he has a nice approach at the plate and he swings at good pitches. I've enjoyed watching him, although it's been in very small samples.

Again, the problem here is that the Cubs brought him up to see if he could be an everyday player. I have no idea if he will or will not be, and don't have a feeling one way or the other. That is the problem. Up until Lawton was acquired, the Cubs current LF was so bad there was absolutely no reason not to play Murton. If there was ever in the history of the game a situation more appropriate for a guy to be battle tested, I am not aware of it. Dubois got a decent look in May, and showed he wasn't quite as good as many thought (although he was better than Holla). Considering the alternatives, I can't understand why Murton wasn't afforded the same opportunity. Of course with Lawton on the team and Patterson on his way up, the window of opportunity has probably passed. No we'll have to wait till next year to see if Murton can do the job. I'd like to see Burnitz moved in a waiver deal if possible. You might be able to get decent value out of Burnitz. I would think he'd clear waivers w/out a problem. My thoughts on Murton. I don't know if he's an everyday player, or not. What irritates me is that I should have a better idea. There was every opportunity for him to have playing time in the OF before the Lawton trade, or even since w/ Macias playing CF. Dusty's just a bone head.

I think Hendry's reputation is exactly why Dusty may be fired. Just for speculation, if the Cubs get swept by the Reds at home........Dusty should be fired before the start of the St. Louis series! I'm really cheering for CPat. I hope he does well when he comes back. I guess he's suppose to be activated today. So maybe he'll be in the line-up. http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050809&content_id=1163229&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

Moving a team may be what is needed. Teams like Florida, or TB where attendance is low and revenues are down. The other thing not discussed is the Nationals.............will they stay there? No one has purchased them and it's just as likely that a buyer would want to move them as keep them there. Was there any thoughts on the 4 division line-up w/ 2 Wild Card winners out of each league? Or the minimum spending limit?

This is true of TB, but Colorado is a cash cow, because they have large attendances. For that reason, I think that the Marlins should be contracted as well, because their attendances are just as lowsy as TB's. I don't think you can contract the Marlins. They've won 2 WS. They need a new stadium, good marketing, and a great rival.

A few things come to mind while reading this thread. I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post! First off, no way would I entertain the thought of expansion yet again. In fact, I think that 2 teams should be contracted (TB and COL.) and that the rosters should be expanded from 25/40 to 27/42, or 30/45. It would allow the players from the 2 contracted teams to find jobs, so the players union might go for it. I say TB and COL because neither franchise has really done anything to anchor itself in baseball history and what I mean mostly here is win a WS, or consistantly be in the playoffs..........which if they had been doing that they'd probably have great revenue streams and be quality clubs. I know, I know TB has alot of young talent..............they still haven't done anything. Secondly, I don't know what all the fuss is about the wildcard. It generates so much excitement for baseball. Pre '94 our season would have been done at the ASG with the Cards out to a huge lead, instead we've been waking up every morning reading the boxscores of the teams ahead of us, or staying up late to catch the scores on ESPN to see where we're at. You're never going to have a perfect system, but the wildcard has put excitement in baseball. So, I would stand pat on the playoff system. As far as alignment, by removing 1 team from both leagues, that would put the AL at 13 teams and the NL at 15. I would either move Milwaukee back to the AL, or I'd move Arizona to the AL. If Arizona wants to move obviously I'd go that route. I'd also switch Texas and Washington in leagues (assuming Washington stays in Washington.) I'd then go back to 2 divisions. They're would be the East and West in both. And I'd have 2 WC in each league that could come out of any division. So you could have 2 WC out of one division if it fell that way. The divisions would line out like this: AL East NY Yankees Boston Red Sox Toronto Blue Jays Baltimore Orioles Washington Nationals Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers AL West Chicago White Sox LAA Angels Oakland A's Arizona Diamondbacks Seattle Mariners Kansas City Royals Minnesota Twins NL East NY Mets Pittsburgh Pirates Philadelphia Phillies Chicago Cubs St. Louis Cardinals Milwaukee Brewers Cincinnati Reds NL West Atlanta Braves Houston Astros Texas Rangers Florida Marlins San Francisco Giants San Diego Padres Los Angelos Dodgers I know the geographical positioning isn't exactly right, but I think it would help to eliminate the team that has a .500, or under record that may hold on to a division for much of the year. Your division winner would obviously make it into the playoffs and then 2 WC would be awarded in both leagues. For example, if the Cards won 115 games in the East and the Braves won 98 games to win the West they would both get in. If the Astros were second w/ 90 wins and the Rangers were 3rd w/ 89 in the West, but the Cubs were second in the East with 85............both the Astros and Rangers would be wildcards. I would match the highest seed vs the lowest win total in the WC. In this case, the divisional playoffs would be Cards vs Rangers and Braves vs Astros. For parity reasons, I would put in a minimum cap for spending on ballclubs. I don't believe that a salary cap would be effective in baseball as it is in the NFL, or NBA. I think the roster structure is too different. I would like to see the luxury tax continued along w/ a minimum cap that teams would HAVE to spend X amount to field a competative team and some type of revenue sharing to help supplement the smaller markets. I think this would also help with keeping some of the marquee players with the teams they come up with because the team has to spend a certain amount on players..................might as well spend it to keep the good ones!!!!! Sorry for the blurb! Just alot of thoughts as I read through here.

I'm watching more and more of the Bear game................Bears up 7-0, Cubs down 4-0. Cubs may make it easy on me!

How pitiful is it that I'll probably be watching alot of the Bears game tonight! If I keep watching this Cub team in volume I'm going to have a stroke!!!!!

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see how the Cream of Wheat comment can be taken racially, unless you just say "he said that because I'm black/hispanic/etc.". Cream of Wheat use to have an elderly African-American man who was serving Cream of Wheat to little white kids on the front cover.

I'd venture to say that your guess is correct. All I'm saying is that he shouldn't have said Caribbean and made it "racial." These brain dead players like Feliz and Cruz that just go up there and swing at slop............ When you're talking about racially charged comments...............they have to be racially charged, meaning this guy has to literally hate for Caribbeans. I just don't think that's the case. I don't agree w/ what he said, but I don't think he's a racist.

Cameron has a cannon and Blanco is slow. I thought it was deep? How slow is he.............. :lol:

Blanco doesn't move up?

7IP 4H 2ER 2BB 5K Pretty good line for Maddux. LET'S GET SOME RUNS!!!!!

What was that??? A 6-8 pitch inning for Seo?