srbin84

Yeah, I can't find a site for it, but I heard on sports radio last week he had like 14 or 15, leading the league.

He's been my guy since his first relief outing. Keep bangin' Carlos.

In regards to 2003/2004 and 2005, if Clines is to blame for screwing Patterson up in 2005, then is the reason for his success in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004 attributed to his work with Gary Matthews? I believe he has primarily worked with Clines since Dusty arrived. Of course, it was also certainly tied to Hendry and his love for the Pierre prototype. Well, then it seems like he did a pretty damn good job coaching him in 2003 and 2004 because he made a really huge jump in productivity. And then they did such a terrible job trying to make him Juan Pierre that they felt the hope was gone and needed to dump him. Are you aware how significant the bunt single has been to CPatt's numbers this year?

Patterson was a young hitter with loads of talent that was never harnessed properly. Pierre is a player with a (bad) established way of hitting where as Corey was young enough to modify his approach. Both broke into the big leagues the same year, and Pierre is 2 years older. I don't see much of a difference. I was referring to the point in time when the Cubs coaching staffs were first able to work with each player. Patterson came to the Cubs out of the minors and Pierre going into this year was too old of a dog to learn any great new tricks and already had an established way of hitting. THAT is why Cubs coaching should be more blamed for Corey than for Juan. If that's the case, people shouldn't just say Clines screwed him up last year. They should say Pentland, Williams did a bad job coaching him, then when Clines first came in, he did a very good job coaching him, then in 2005, he started doing a bad job coaching him. If you are going to blame his performance on coaching, include everything.

In regards to 2003/2004 and 2005, if Clines is to blame for screwing Patterson up in 2005, then is the reason for his success in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004 attributed to his work with Gary Matthews? I believe he has primarily worked with Clines since Dusty arrived. Of course, it was also certainly tied to Hendry and his love for the Pierre prototype. Well, then it seems like he did a pretty damn good job coaching him in 2003 and 2004 because he made a really huge jump in productivity.

In regards to 2003/2004 and 2005, if Clines is to blame for screwing Patterson up in 2005, then is the reason for his success in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004 attributed to his work with Gary Matthews?

Yes, Patterson had an injury one year, and yes, Pierre got more AB's in large part because he was playing well and Patterson wasn't. My point is that they were drafted the same year and came up the same year, so they are subject to the same excuses.

The funniest part of all this for me is that Patterson's season is being held together by all of his bunt hits.

Patterson was a young hitter with loads of talent that was never harnessed properly. Pierre is a player with a (bad) established way of hitting where as Corey was young enough to modify his approach. Both broke into the big leagues the same year, and Pierre is 2 years older. I don't see much of a difference. Pierre's swing is atrocious. There's no way to fix something so fundamentally screwed up. He'd have to forget everything he knows and start from scratch, and he's way too old for that. They have a 2 year age difference and the same amount of years in the minors/majors. Pierre had a career average over .300 coming into this year, and he has the terrible swing and is way to old to change, yet Patterson and his sub .300 OBP coming into this season and 2 years difference on his birth certificate makes him young and devolping?

They were picked in the same draft. Patterson was No. 3 overall and Pierre was picked in the 13th round. They had same amount of minor league experience. No argument there, Pierre is a leadoff hitter. That explains half a season. The correct answer is that Corey was terrible a lot of the time while Pierre was good.

Corey had 2,176 career ABs coming into this season, Pierre had 3,411. And why did Pierre get more AB's during that time?

I think his success this year says a lot about his willingness to learn. I only wish that Corey really was stubborn last year and could have blocked out everything Clines and company were telling him about changing his swing instead of focusing on strike zone recognition. That's great, but what are the reasons he was so horrible in about his first 800 ABs/830 PA's, had a pretty good half season when Dusty and his crew first arrived, slipped back to around average in 2004 then all of the sudden reverted back to his rookie form? There is a lot more to his career than just last year.

You gotta be freakin' kidding me. I could not possibly hate the people running this club any more than I do right now. Why exactly? All I see there is that the baseball people watching him think he is throwing fine and 100%, but he's lost a little on his fastball. Prior thinks if he keeps pitching the velocity will eventually come back. Nobody knows for sure whether it will or not. How long should they really wait before accepting him for who he is whenever they call him up? I'd give him another start or two, but I don't think he should get 10 starts or anything like that.

Patterson was a young hitter with loads of talent that was never harnessed properly. Pierre is a player with a (bad) established way of hitting where as Corey was young enough to modify his approach. Both broke into the big leagues the same year, and Pierre is 2 years older. I don't see much of a difference.

Well, Cole Hamels is back and only in a matter of weeks after going on the DL with a shoulder strain. Why did it only take him around 3 weeks?

I like Marmol a lot and have a good feeling about him.

I'd give them Barrett too, and I like Barrett.

You didn't answer my point. At the time of the trade, he had only made 4 post season starts. If the Cardinals traded for him because he was a postseason ace based on his numbers over four starts, they were fools. You can't make the 7 starts argument after the fact because he hadn't even made three of those starts when they traded for him. Why trade your best prospect, your best young starter, and a good reliever for a guy based solely on the fact that he had pitched very well over a 4 game stretch in the postseason? You seem to be basing your argument only on those four games. You guys have been saying 7 starts isn't enough since yesterday. You answer my question first, then I'll make my case. I've been saying four starts wasn't enough. That was the number of starts he had made in the postseason when the Cardinals traded for him. Ok, well, multiple others were implying it was a joke to think 7 starts was enough to judge someone. My case for 4 is simply that there wasn't anybody else available at the time for his salary with his record of success in the postseason that had a significantly greater amount of postseason starts.......and if we are going to include every factor, that was in the prime of his career and an allstar quality pitcher. You have to deal with the market as it is. You'd love to be as certain as possible but some designations are relative to the competition. Add to the desperation of an organization and a fan base starving for a world series after multiple postseasons ending in disaster, and you have a reason to make this deal. If you can find quotes from Jocketty indicating his postseason experience did not factor into the trade, I'd like to see them.

You didn't answer my point. At the time of the trade, he had only made 4 post season starts. If the Cardinals traded for him because he was a postseason ace based on his numbers over four starts, they were fools. You can't make the 7 starts argument after the fact because he hadn't even made three of those starts when they traded for him. Why trade your best prospect, your best young starter, and a good reliever for a guy based solely on the fact that he had pitched very well over a 4 game stretch in the postseason? You seem to be basing your argument only on those four games. You guys have been saying 7 starts isn't enough since yesterday. You answer my question first, then I'll make my case.

Some of you don't even think 7 starts over 3 seasons is enough. What do you guys want? Not everybody plays for the Yankees and Braves.

So what exactly are you doing with Haren, then? Eight playoff relief innings in one year doesn't tell me much. I'm not saying he couldn't be a playoff ace, but that is a rare quality and Mulder had it before St. Louis and last year. The Cubs don't make the playoffs very often, so I can see why that quality might be undervalued, but I put a lot of value in it based on the two experiences I have had watching the Cubs in the playoffs as well as what I have seen of other playoff teams over the years, both good and bad.

How would he lose money!!?? We've got so many revenue streams. Last year the Cubs had @ $100 million dollar team and they made @ 5 or 6 million in profit. You do the math. Those are figures reported by the Cubs, right? No, that's a best guess from Forbes reported profit from 2001. But more to the point, money is not what is holding the Cubs back. Bad spending is, agreed. However, I'd rather they have a 130 million dollar team than a 100 million dollar one. And I think there is a good chance things have changed a lot since 2001.

How would he lose money!!?? We've got so many revenue streams. Last year the Cubs had @ $100 million dollar team and they made @ 5 or 6 million in profit. You do the math. Those are figures reported by the Cubs, right?

I just really don't like how people completely dismiss the mental aspect of baseball.

I was a little frightened by the Rafael Santana thing. If he's the kind of guy that has loyalty to terrible players, that's a deal breaker for me. I'd like to know a little more about that whole situation and if there are others like it in his career. I know SS wasn't a big time offensive position 15-20 years ago, but that guy might be a worse player than Neifi.