davearm

In terms of service time, they gained a year. I don't think so... not yet at least. See the bolded section below. My read of that is that if Pie remains up with the Cubs for the remainder of the year, he will earn a full year of service time, as MLB is currently only 16 days into the 2007 season. Of course if they drop Pie back down, and he ends up collecting over 20 days in Iowa, then at that point his free agency will be pushed back a year.

I think we need a "when can we officially worry about the lack of no-hitters?" thread.

I'd prefer Soriano in RF because he's got a much better arm. I get the distinct sense that the sooner the Cubs put Soriano in left and leave him there for good, and quit trying to make him into something he's not, the better off everyone will be. Maybe I'm wrong (and hopefully I am), and this whole CF thing will work out, but if it doesn't, my next move is not to try him in yet another unfamiliar spot like RF. The phrase, "out of the frying pan and into the fire" races to mind.

Agree completely. If you're without Ramirez, and Floyd's in the lineup, then Floyd has to take ARam's cleanup spot. From there, just flip-flop Barrett and Jones to get the alternating R-L-R-L sequence you want to have from 3 through 6.

He certainly could have said "I'm not interested", but he didn't. Reading between the lines it looks like whether or not Wrigley is included in the purchase would be an important detail for him, as it should be. i just know that he won't be approved by the league. and it sucks that reinsdorf is going to have that much pull with the league to keep cuban out. politically, reinsdorf would sabotage him. the whole thing smacks of collusion, because it's a conflict of interest for jerry to have a vote at all, anyway. sadly, he wouldn't need a vote, just a phone and a few friends around the league. no way reinsdorf pulls that off. He tried when Cuban bought the Mavs and ended up being the only person who voted against it. I can't see him swaying over half the league to his side. No chance at all IIRC, a new owner needs 75% approval from the other owners (not just half). If that's correct, then Reinsdorf + 7 others would be enough to keep Cuban out.

So they should stick to a bad decision because they don't have the guts to admit a mistake sooner rather than later? They shouldn't let one start change the conclusion they drew after having 8 weeks of performance to consider. If Miller was their guy out of ST, he's still got to be their guy one week/one start into the season. Why? Give me a good reason. Is there some sort of honor or toughness associated with sticking to a stupid and poorly reasoned decision? You're the one using terms like "stupid" and "poorly reasoned". If Guzman was a better option than Miller today, then he would've been so a week ago too. But he wasn't -- not in the Cubs' eyes anyway. Obviously the Cubs didn't think Guzman was a better option than Miller a week ago, and little has happened in the interim to cause them to rethink that judgement -- Miller had one bad outing, and Guzman has been hit out of the 'pen. The first major flaw in your reasoning here is to assume Guzman would be good if he was just allowed to start. There's no reason to assume that, and in fact Guzman's been pretty godawful in his prior ML starts. The second is to assume that you know better than the Cubs who would be better. Actually it's your reasoning that's flawed here. You don't have to assume that Guzman would be good. Just as effective or better than Miller. How is my reasoning flawed? I'm not the one making assumptions here.

So they should stick to a bad decision because they don't have the guts to admit a mistake sooner rather than later? They shouldn't let one start change the conclusion they drew after having 8 weeks of performance to consider. If Miller was their guy out of ST, he's still got to be their guy one week/one start into the season. Why? Give me a good reason. Is there some sort of honor or toughness associated with sticking to a stupid and poorly reasoned decision? You're the one using terms like "stupid" and "poorly reasoned". If Guzman was a better option than Miller today, then he would've been so a week ago too. But he wasn't -- not in the Cubs' eyes anyway. Obviously the Cubs didn't think Guzman was a better option than Miller a week ago, and little has happened in the interim to cause them to rethink that judgement -- Miller had one bad outing, and Guzman has been hit out of the 'pen. The first major flaw in your reasoning here is to assume Guzman would be good if he was just allowed to start. There's no reason to assume that, and in fact Guzman's been pretty godawful in his prior ML starts. The second is to assume that you know better than the Cubs who would be better.

So they should stick to a bad decision because they don't have the guts to admit a mistake sooner rather than later? They shouldn't let one start change the conclusion they drew after having 8 weeks of performance to consider. If Miller was their guy out of ST, he's still got to be their guy one week/one start into the season. And you're the one jumping to the "bad decision" and "mistake" conclusions. The rational reaction is to recognize that it's too early to make such determinations.

Guzman is lacking - consistancy - translation of talent - ability to get major league hitters out Both can improve, but Miller won the spot and should be given his chance. There is no gaurantee that Guzman will do better or win games. Can you prove Miller "won" the spot? It seems as if it was given and not earned. Meanwhile, Guzman has: Velocity Movement Control The thing he lacks is experience. There's seriously no risk in having him start over Miller. The bottom line is that Lou and co. threw the 5th starter slot wide open to competition this spring, and invited to compete were Guzman, Cotts, Miller, and Prior. At the conclusion of that 6-8 week process, Miller was deemed the "winner", based on the coaching staff's perception that Miller was pitching better than the other three, and consequently was the guy that gave the team the best chance to win. Guzman had the chance to prove that he's that guy (as you're assuring us here that he is), but the fact is that he didn't do so when given the opportunity (and by all indications, Lou really likes the kid and wanted to see him step up and grab the job). Now ultimately Miller may pitch his way out of that 5th starter job, or one of the other guys might pitch their way into it, but we have certainly not reached that point yet... not after only one start from Miller, two forgettable relief appearances from Guzman, and nothing from Prior. Making a change now would reek of panic, and would cast doubt on the conviction of the coaching staff and the confidence they have in their decisionmaking process.

That's the point. His injuries have made him a below average pitcher. How do we know that? Based on the 20 spring training IP that you've already told us would be a terrible basis for deciding anything?

Basing your roster on spring training performance is a stupid way to construct your ballclub. Seriously, how hard is this to understand? It's not high school basketball tryouts. You go with talent. Spring training is for getting in shape for the season, not auditioning for starting roles. I cannot believe how this is a difficult concept for people to grasp. Not entirely true. For the kids like Guzman it's a chance to impress as Marshall did last year. Or Rocky Cherry, Theriot, and Cedeno did this year. That's the kind of mentality that has contributed the the Cubs being a suckfest for 99 years. Relying on the piddling sample size of spring training to build your roster. You honestly believe that spring training should not be used to evaluate young players, and players attempting to come back from injury? Their only purpose for being down there is to get in shape, not to figure out who deserves the last couple of bench/bullpen/rotation spots? They should have all of the roster questions answered before anyone even shows up? Even on a team with a new coaching staff led by a manager and hitting coach brought in from outside the organization, with little to no familiarity with the players? Seriously? And what's with the hangup on 18 or 20 spring IP? Between bullpen sessions, batting practice, and game action, the Cubs coaches observed each of these guys throwing literally thousands of pitches over the last 8 weeks. You can figure out a lot from what you see in ST.

And according to Oneri Fleita, that point will come when Prior can throw in the neighborhood of 5 innings/100 pitches. Makes perfect sense to me. No point in burning out the Iowa bullpen while Prior regains his armstrength and endurance. Agreed with the bullpen, but if he threw 4 innings/75-80 pitches that shouldn't be too much for a bullpen to cover, and he was getting to that point when he left spring training. One start isn't too big of an issue, but I hope it doesn't turn into more. We could argue back and forth about what the proper endurance threshold ought to be, but the point remains: the Cubs will do just what you suggest ("Hey kid, show me you've still got something.") once Prior's conditioning allows for it.

And according to Oneri Fleita, that point will come when Prior can throw in the neighborhood of 5 innings/100 pitches. Makes perfect sense to me. No point in burning out the Iowa bullpen while Prior regains his armstrength and endurance.

The blue tops looked like BP jerseys, and gave the impression that the guys forgot to change into their real uniforms before the start of the game. Good riddance. The grays might not be a wonderful design, but at least the tops and pants are the same color, like they should be.

First Jones will be gone, look for the first injury of the year in a contending team in the OF or DH. Baltimore is the first already with Payton. I think the Cubs will not wait for July, let alone June, I think 6 weeks at the most. Of course some of this depends on Pie continuing in his plate discipline and showing results. Also don't expect the Cubs to put Soriano in RF either, he is destined for LF. My best guess is that the Cubs will be looking to trade for Suzuki as he is not going to sign with the inept Seattle franchise and they will want to shed payroll. Murton, (hopefully) Prior who also will be recalled by early May (providing he too is performing) and allowing Miller to be moved to the bullpen along with someone like E-Patterson and Marmol or Marshall for Ichiro. Murton will be temporarily moved to RF before this. When Prior is traded it will be about the time that either Guzman ascends to the rotation or if he has already Marquis is returned to the rotation. My gawd. And to think how people howled about the Cubs giving up what they did to get Pierre.

I didn't read the whole long thread so I don't know if someone mentioned this. But didn't they say that Soriano would have just as hard a time playing RF as CF at Wrigley? Not everyone has figured this out yet, but if Soriano doesn't work out in CF, the Cubs are going to have a real dilemma on their hands. That would leave them with three LFs, all of whom are poorly suited to play anyplace *but* LF: Soriano, Murton, and Floyd. Ultimately, the choice would come down to playing Murton in RF (despite an arm that's inadequate for that spot) and trading Jones, or leaving Jones in RF and trading Murton. Rock or hard place.

I've got the entire MLB schedule in a spreadsheet if you want it. Should be cake to filter out everything but the Cubs games if that's all you want.

What the Padres did is operate within the agreement that Walker's union collectively bargained with the owners. Any grievance Walker has is with Don Fehr.

Yeah, because MLB umpires never miss any calls. :roll: They didn't miss this call, so I'm not clear on what point you're trying to make. You were defending your position by saying "If he did something wrong, then why wasn't he called out for interference?" My point was pretty easy and clear. That was an ignorant argument to use to make that point. Just because an MLB ump didn't call him out, doesn't mean squat. MLB umps miss calls all of the time. I've yet to see a single game called with no errors. That should have been pretty obvious. The umps didn't miss *this* call. Therefore I see no reason for you to point out that umpires sometimes make mistakes. That statement is equal parts irrelevant and obvious. Now if you want to make the case that Furcal did in fact commit interference on the play in question, well, good luck with that argument.

Yeah, because MLB umpires never miss any calls. :roll: They didn't miss this call, so I'm not clear on what point you're trying to make.

I'm spinning? Look where Furcal's right foot touches the bag. On the inside, if you don't feel like watching again. To say that if Furcal would've arrived at the bag at the same time, same speed, and 'basically the same path' is disregarding the fundamental truth that a straight line is the shortest, therefore the quickest, possible distance between two points. Was Lee asking for it by stepping in front of the baserunner's path? Certainly. Was a collision likely because of this? Yes. Would the collision have been different had Furcal taken a different path, therefore altering the time and place at which he would have crossed paths with Lee? Most definitely. Would the collision have been different had Furcal taken a different path? Perhaps. It's certainly possible that DLee could've wound up with a concussion and a broken neck instead of a fractured wrist. Or he could've been uninjured altogether. Regardless, it was DLee that put DLee in harm's way. Not Rafael Furcal. So let's just quit with all this Lee-as-the-victim and Furcal-as-the-villain drama.

Lots has been made about how Furcal was inside the basepath on his way to the bag. In the end, that's totally irrelevant. He didn't interfere with the flip from Eyre, and the collision occured *at* the base, not in front of it. I fail to see what difference it would've made if Furcal was a step outside the line versus a step inside the line in the handful of strides leading up to the collision at the bag. The end result wouldn't have changed. Either way, Furcal would've arrived at the same place at the same time, with the same speed, and running on basically the same path through the base. DLee jumped in Furcal's way as Furcal touched the base. Period. You can spin it any way you like, but at the end of the day, DLee was the one who created the collision by jumping into the basepath to try and grab Eyre's throw.

The only things I suggested was that perhaps Furcal could have avoided a collision and that an apology or a sign of remorse for being involved in an incident whereby a peer of his was injured to the point the he could not do his job was outside of his low character. That's all. Perhaps instead of me kwittingmybichin you should consider engaging in a civil discussion that doesn't involve insulting other posters simply for displaying an opinion other than the one you hold. Here's a link to the video. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060420&content_id=1409827&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb Have a look and then see if you still want to continue with this civil discussion, in which you're advocating that Furcal could have (used to be should have) avoided this collision. Pay particular attention to the fact that Furcal's path through the base is clear until the very last second, when Lee suddenly jumps in front of him, right on top of the base itself, trying to snag the errant throw from Eyre. Furcal had no reason to anticipate a collision, let alone have time to avoid it. And even if he had time, why should he, since he would've had to miss the base to avoid Lee?

The expectations for Marquis are low because he's not good. The expectations for a $21m investment should be significantly higher than the piss-poor numbers you're throwing up there to consider Marquis a success. Again, you're projecting *your* expectations for a guy with a 3/21 deal. I'd suggest that your expecations are not the same as the Cubs' expectations. So, what's your point? Just because the Cubs might be happy with crap doesn't justify the fans being satisfied with crap. Obviously Hendry has different standards of measuring the worth of players than I do. That doesn't mean a 170 inning season of 95 ERA+ pitching is anything remotedly close to acceptable for Marquis. I for one would take 170 and 95 from Marquis (and FWIW, I happen to think he will deliver it). Just because you apparently don't like that particular threshold for "acceptable" doesn't automatically mean it's unreasonable.

The expectations for Marquis are low because he's not good. The expectations for a $21m investment should be significantly higher than the piss-poor numbers you're throwing up there to consider Marquis a success. Again, you're projecting *your* expectations for a guy with a 3/21 deal. I'd suggest that your expecations are not the same as the Cubs' expectations.