JC

Execution? I'm all for it.

The use of "a" instead of "an" provides some guidance.

Anyone up in the pen?

It's sad when .237 puts you in contention, too.

What the hell are you doing here? No TV here and Tim gave me a bump awhile back. I figured it was time to end the self-imposed exile. Holy wow Think of all the snide remarks I have saved up. Glad to see so many familiar names.

Inspiration is a dangerous thing. Hold it. That's not quite right...

Hairston 3-1

Egad. Every time I check Gamecast, batters have at least a 3 ball count against Wells.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Vitters has been quite a disappointment overall the last 2 years and is just now showing signs of adapting to AAA and hitting with authority. There's really no need to rush him up here until Theo and Co. feel there's nothing left for him to prove. And in my opinion, he still has quite a bit to prove. I figured he has been widely viewed as a disappointment since he was "the best pure hitter in the draft" or some mularky like that a few years ago. Didn't figure him to be a Theo guy, so I guess I thought maybe he and Jed would throw him to the wolves with little worry about consequences.

It appears that was more of a Vitters post than a Valbuena post. Mark it up to the time off. Gimme a break. For God's sake, I still have a Steve Stone quote as a sig!

So, this Valbuena guy. Is Vitters THAT much of a defensive liability or is there a clock issue with him? Or, is he just not a Theo guy? I haven't kept up with the chatter, but it seems like he is doing some ok things offensively. What gives?

Randy Wells isn't particularly good.

Gamecast made it look like that single went right through Rizzo.

What the hell are you doing here? No TV here and Tim gave me a bump awhile back. I figured it was time to end the self-imposed exile. I want it to be clear that it was an email that I sent him... :) In that case, I want it to be clear also.

What the hell are you doing here? No TV here and Tim gave me a bump awhile back. I figured it was time to end the self-imposed exile.

Not the first Holy Crap directed at me today...

Who's this Rizzo character?

Something familiar about this: the Cubs looking to possibly acquire a stud pitcher from the Indians for a strong second half stretch run. Quick! Someone find a Joe Carter and Mel Hall in the system! (Apologies to Hasse, Frazier and Schultze--the other less notable members of that trade.)

Gets in a Deloreon, accelerates to 88 mph, goes back in time, and changes Lou's scorecard indicating he was taken out for Wuertz. Then, just pitches normal.

i see we continue to lump howry in with the "bad signing" group, even though he's more than earned his $4m per year. No. Thats not what I said at all. I recognize that there is value in some high dollar relievers in your bullpen (when they perform). The point, once again, is the fact that the Cubs' pen consists of several players in Howry's range, and this management group has been enamored with high dollar middle relievers who have generally underperformed. Howry's contract may be justifiable; however, coupled with the other pen contracts, it makes for an expensive pen.

I specifically recall disappointment over Remlinger, particularly because Hendry went out and paid over market for an aging lefty. I don't remember much grousing about Hawkins.

who cares? on paper the bullpen looks to be one of the better ones in the league, with or without a "truly dominant closer." let the reds have cordero at $10.5M per; let the brewers have gagne at $10M. our bullpen should be just as good, and probably cheaper than at least the brewers' pen and possibly cincy's too. The point wasn't a lament of the lack of closer. Rather, it seems like a pretty steep price when the bulk of it isn't being absorbed by some guy throwing bullets at the end of the game with a track record to support a hefty salary. Having a number of $3M-$5M relievers isn't ideal, IMO. Look at recent contracts for relievers in the $12M range: Hawkins, Eyre and Remlinger have had horrendous years in the midst of their respective contracts, yet we continue to give out big dollars for extended periods to relievers. Dempster is a joke, and has been despite his save percentage (which is a farce). I can accept an argument that Howry is worth his contract, but he has had his shaky moments. The point is simply this: mid-range contracts add-up and the Cubs ought to learn from their mistakes. Bullpens ought to be stocked from within the organization with the bulk of their guys earning less than $3M, or, at the very least, not have extended commitments at +$3M. You could argue that the Cubs have learned from the mistakes of Eyre and Dempster though. They have only given out 2 deals of over 1 million to relievers in the past 2 years (Ohman and Wood). Ohman was a 2 year deal for a relatively small amount that they traded away after year 1. Wood is a larger deal, but only a 1 year commitment. The team hasn't continued to give out extended commitments to relievers for quite a while now. The big test will come after 2008, when Howry, Dempster, Eyre, and Wood all come off of the books. How many multi-year deals will be spent to replace them? If it's more than 2, I think you'll have a greater point about the Cubs learning from their mistakes. Right now, they're just living with their past mistakes (and Howry has been anything but a mistake, he has earned every penny and more. To have a dependable guy who is consistently and significantly above league average from year to year is worth a lot in this market, even for a bullpen guy). Granted, you could wait until 2008 is over to see how the Cubs replace these guys. Unfortunately, unless Hendry's regime is finally vanquished, the Cubs are likely to maintain the course they have already set forth. Howry and Eyre were just the last in the line. This pattern goes back the Remlinger, then Hawkins, then Dempster, then Howry and Eyre. Mind you, that is not even including the agognizing Antonio Alfonseca, who didn't have a long term deal if I recall; rathe, he was just the recipient of the world's dumbest raise.

who cares? on paper the bullpen looks to be one of the better ones in the league, with or without a "truly dominant closer." let the reds have cordero at $10.5M per; let the brewers have gagne at $10M. our bullpen should be just as good, and probably cheaper than at least the brewers' pen and possibly cincy's too. The point wasn't a lament of the lack of closer. Rather, it seems like a pretty steep price when the bulk of it isn't being absorbed by some guy throwing bullets at the end of the game with a track record to support a hefty salary. Having a number of $3M-$5M relievers isn't ideal, IMO. Look at recent contracts for relievers in the $12M range: Hawkins, Eyre and Remlinger have had horrendous years in the midst of their respective contracts, yet we continue to give out big dollars for extended periods to relievers. Dempster is a joke, and has been despite his save percentage (which is a farce). I can accept an argument that Howry is worth his contract, but he has had his shaky moments. The point is simply this: mid-range contracts add-up and the Cubs ought to learn from their mistakes. Bullpens ought to be stocked from within the organization with the bulk of their guys earning less than $3M, or, at the very least, not have extended commitments at +$3M.

A +$20M bullpen with no truly dominant closer? Wow.

Wasn't Len talking last night about bringing someone up for a "spot" start to rest the pen? Something about going to Colorado and needing some help for the pen. Now, I didn't really understand how this saves the pen when he was talking about it, so I'm not championing the idea. However, if the Cubs were going to try to start someone, Sean would be the one, I suppose.