JC

Speaking of which, how much did those underpants cost you? They came with the jockstrap. IMB collects underpants? What is he, a gnome? "Step one, collect underpants. Step two, *silence* Step three, profit!"

Thats why he is a ML manager and you're not. (I just love that one!)

Is Blanco catching? If so, you could put Barrett at third. Remember, Barrett has played +120 games at 3B. He'd still be available to spell Blanco if he gets injured as he is already in the game.

Now, I once heard that all sprains were actually "tears", but just not severe. Does anybody know if that is accurate?

Maddux's history of success is also a wee bit deeper than Carpenter's too. The Admin has a point there. In fact last year was the first year that Carpenter was successful and healthy. You are right; however, he was highly regarded when he was with Toronto, if memory serves.

JC and others argument withstanding, I agree with Dime. I don't know that he was a "fat jerk" but something obviously wasn't right when he was the Cubs property. I agree that this may have been a wake up call for him. It's a shame for the Cubs though. How did I get pulled into this? :D Despite his "problems" (which I think are often exaggerated due to the possibility of Cub management looking bad), his potential remained obvious, evidenced by the number of opinions that he would be vulnerable in the Rule V draft. While the same can be said for Hagerty, I don't think he presented the upside Sisco did, nor the investment by the Cubs. I understand the argument about the option clock, but I don't agree with it in this case. What do the Cubs gain if Sisco crashes and is returned at this point? A pitcher who has now been subject to a new system's pitching instruction? Half a season until the same decision must be made again? At what point do should people start giving KC credit for their "gamble"? Perhaps, just perhaps, they had a better idea on Sisco's value and potential than the Cubs did. Of course, there are 150+ games to be played yet, so time will tell whether it was good scouting by KC, or pie in the sky hopes. Regardless, I maintain that the risk wasn't worth it for the Cubs based on all of the arguments I have presented in the various threads on this issue earlier.

I have no objection to Hairston at leadoff and Corey 2nd. I think Dusty is lame but this lineup doesn't bother me at all. I can live with it.

I'm pretty sure you are correct. Macias's ability to play multiple positions is similar to my grandmother's ability to drive. He's done it a lot, but that doesn't mean he's any good at it. I don't disagree. But, I don't think Dusty sees it that way.

Neifi is alright as a backup shortstop. Just as long as he doesn't have to start, they can win with him on the team. But there's no reason why he's the 2nd bat off the bench. The Cubs have 3-4 "25th men" yet they seem to want to use them all the time. That reminds me of a scene in the movie Parent Hood" when Clint Howard was yelling "No reason" when Steve Martins son was out there playing second base and dropped a fly ball. IMO, Blanco and Perez have to be the worst hitters and having a Macias is just making this whole pinch hit thing askew. Call Grieve up now and give Macias his walking papers. The "problem" with letting Macias go is that there is nobody to handle 3B to spell ARam. Neifi has appeared at 3B on 6 occassions in the majors, compiling 1 error in 4 chances. Hairston has played exactly 3 ML innings at 3B. Barrett has the most experience, but that leaves the catching corps thin and Blanco getting additional ABs. Thus, my preference was to keep Hansen. He has a better bat than Macias and plays 3B. Of course, I'd have gone with an 11 man pitching staff allowing for additional revisions to the roster, but thats just me.

I think last night's start was a perfect example of why he was an intriguing option out of the pen but a terrible option to be a starting pitcher. He was dominant for short bursts, but he just does not have the ability to consistently get people out 2-3 times through the order. I'm not as intrigued. He has gotten lit up early all spring. At this point, even if relegated to the bullpen, I'm not particularly excited about it. But, it would be a better option than starting, without question.

You can't follow up the Eckstein post with a poor effort like that.

I think this point is open for debate. The "good" he brings to the table has taken huge hits from the turmoil of 2004 alone.

Nobody should be surprised that Dempster got rocked. His spring sucked from beginning to end. His last start against Seattle wasn't very good either, despite just giving up one run. Everything against Seattle was up. Everything. The Mariners were getting good wood on his pitches, they just weren't scoring. While no one would argue with the result, a more critical look at his performance was an easy predictor with respect to last night's struggles. Dempster stinks. I could give a rodent's rear end about his "make-up" or "mentality" or whatever redeeming, intangible quality you want to throw at me. He has shown nothing that warrants a spot on this pitching staff anywhere. I'm no huge Mitre fan, but I'd rather see him get the experience in the hopes of him turning into something of value. Dempster simply blows and has demonstrated his poor value all spring long. Heck, consider stretching Welly out. I'd rather see him or Leceister try their hands at ML starting than the $2M mistake that is Ryan "Crazy Man" Dempster.

[bragging]I just received a phone call from a buddy who has some tickets for next Tuesday's game and offered one to me. While the opposing team is an uninspiring San Diego squad, the seats are allegedly the new ones behind home plate. Thus, I will be able to counsel Dusty on his moves for one game. I'm certain he will be ecstatic.[/bragging]

It is awkward to see, but I wouldn't say it bothers me. Judging by your post count, I thought that perhaps you were a relative novice, and I would have offered a helpful suggestion that I thought would have made things easier for you.

Dime, is there a reason you don't simply use the "quote" function in your posts? Just curious.

Oh. I thought when you said first wild pitch, you were talking about the one pitched to ARam right before Burnitz's AB. That entire sequence, however, felt like 2004. After all of the offseason talk about how the offense would be different by "creating" runs, it didn't see all that different to me after getting men at 2nd and 3rd with no outs. Of course, that was just one sequence out of hundreds that will follow.

I've seen this criticism a couple of times today and just wanted to toss one thing out there regarding this issue. I thought I saw ARam give Walker the stop sign at first, then waive him when he saw the ball bound away. From what I saw, the play developed awkwardly, but that was my first impression and I didn't see a replay. If I'm wrong about ARam, please let me know.

It isn't a discussion though, it isn't subjective thinking, as it just piling on him just to pile on him. More times than not, I disagree with his moves, I just don't feel the need to display my feathers like a male peacock every time he makes a poor move. If you're in the mind-set that he'll likely make poor decision before a good move (as I am), it is difficult to have an objective thought process. For example, if Dierker was the next manager as much as I want him, I think you can have a similar thread in a short amount of time and have enough people to make it substantial. I disagree that every manager is subject to the same scrutiny as Dusty. Dusty's reputation as a poor tactition proceeded his tenure at Chicago. While I'm certain you are correct that no matter who was in the driver seat, they would be subject to second guessing by someone, I don't think the criticisms are nearly as evident as with Dusty. In addition, I don't think every criticism that is posted is an attempt to puff one's chest and attract attention to the individual poster. I think most of it derives out of the poster's love for the Cubs. People want the Cubs to succeed, and to the extent they perceive Dusty to be an impediment to that success, they will criticize his decisions. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I see it as a poster attempting to attract attention to him/herself.

It is subject to too much interpretation, obviously using Perez in that situation seems easy to critique as a poor move, but more often than not a move will be decided by the outcome rather than the move itself. Say, Perez gets a start at SS to give Nomar a day off and goes 2-4, the opposition brings in a LH to face him and Dusty sticks with him, there might be enough support to merit keeping Perez out there instead of a RH PH'er. Everyone here knows how I feel about Baker, but as mentioned in another thread, he does deserve a fair shake, this is set-up for a Salem witch hunt. I hate the phrase "witch hunt". Its so over used today that it has lost much of its meaning, in my opinion. I fully agree that such an examination will be open to vast interpretations; however, that is the purpose of the discussion thread. We shouldn't fear opposition, as long as its done in a civil manner. In addition, people that get tired of the Dusty criticism could find solace in the fact that many of his questionable decisions will be limited to one thread and/or forum, rather than littering the board in multiple areas.

Lets face it. Dusty's managerial decisions are among the most hotly debated and questioned aspects of Cub baseball. Instead of running from it and allowing it to devolve into a flame war each time, why not embrace it with a sticky as Raw suggested? Like with the posters' pics, one thread should be strictly devoted to suggestions of qualifing decisions, while a companion thread can be devoted to discussion as to the appropriateness of said suggestions. So often, people use the line, "Well, a manager is only determinitive of 3-4 outcomes a year." If so, why don't we at NSBB take a good, hard look at it? While I'm no fan of increasing the number of Forums, perhaps one limiting itself to these two threads, along with a general thread regarding questionable managerial decisions throughout baseball, would keep this forum from getting to bloody. Perhaps a thread can also be devoted to managerial moves made by Dusty that people want to celebrate. In sum, I believe that Dusty's questionable managerial moves are worth memorializing. Perhaps it will show a trend of hypersensitivity on the part of those of us who don't care for his style. Perhaps it will demonstrate that he has a pattern of acting like a boob which costs the Cubs games. I think its worth considerating.

I wonder if KC won't try to use him a lot early to figure out if he is worth stashing on the roster. Certainly, allowing him to pitch on opening day isn't a move you'd normally make with a guy you don't expect much contribution from. Either they really believe in him now, or want to cut their losses sooner rather than later.

As one of the staunchest Sisco supporters, I'm actually happy for him that he got his big league debut. All in all, probably not a horrible outing considering it is his ML debut, he is, by all accounts, ahead of schedule, and its opening day. Good for Sisco.

Team Stats & Scoring 1. Number of Cubs wins, season 92 2. Number of Cubs wins, Cardinals season series (16 games) 7 3. Number of runs scored, 2005 787 4. Number of earned runs allowed, 2005 721 1. Number of DLee Home Runs 33 2. Number of CPatterson BBs 51 3. Nomar's Batting Average .327 4. Aramis' RBIs 109 5. Maddux's Wins 15 6. Zambrano's ERA 2.64 7. Kerry Wood's Ks 253 8. Mark Prior's Games Started 31 Tiebreaker: Michael Barrett’s OPS .810 --------------------------- ETA (Serena) Team Stats & Scoring 1. 92 + 0 2. 7 + 25 3. 787 + 25 4. 721 +125 1. 33 + 0 2. 51 + 0 3. .327 + 0 4. 109 + 5 5. 15 + 30 6. 2.64 + 0 7. 253 + 0 8. 31 + 30 Tiebreaker: Michael Barrett’s OPS .810 Total: 240

I have been a Brownlie fan from the outset. As such, this excerpt is particularly interesting/encouraging to me. If he does project to be in the Maddux mold, it would be nice if he got to spend some time around Greg. Maddux would likely have a larger impact on Brownlie than a Wood or Zambrano. Oh, and thanks for the great reads, Mark. Your efforts, along with everyone's, are appreciated.