Danny82

wow, you predicted that wood would be hurt? you're obviously very smart. Do you feel better now? What exactly did your post accomplish?

I would do Mateo for Barmes. Not Marmol though.

He just batted in the two hole on Friday.

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that. You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation.

I don't see anything wrong with the chance to get to face major league batters. Sure, he gets more game innings in Iowa, but he doesn't get the same challenges at the plate.

Liriano and Oswalt too. I'm sure there are many others.

I was still able to get reserved bleacher tickets for the Mariners night game and August 1 against the Phillies.

Miller might be traded, sure. I see virtually no reason why they would trade Guzman though. He's young, he's cheap, and he gives them the starting pitching depth that I think they've come to appreciate after last season.

I would think it would make more sense that, on days that Ramirez needs a break, DeRosa would handle 3B and Theriot 2B.

Read back a couple of pages...or go here. Yikes. Talk about a complete overreaction. He gave up 2 hits and 0 runs in 4 innings (granted it was minor league hitters). But he's completely done for. And what's the calves thing? Just stupid. That gives you a little perspective of the mindset of the guy critiquing Prior's performance.

I just got one for 10 am tomorrow.

Do we really know, at this point, what the Cubs prefer in the draft now that Wilken is in charge? I guess the real question is how much autonomy he has in his picks. I have to think quite a bit or else he wouldn't have come here. Has he exhibited a tendency to prefer "big stuff" pitchers in his drafts with TB and Toronto? If I recall correctly, most of his big successes in those organizations have been more or less with position players. I'm sure I am missing something, but what, other than his love of Jeff S. and drafting Nieman (sp?) would make him likely to prefer Brackman over Wieters?

Ummmm, what? Hardly a peep? Nothing that I can recall accusing the Red Sox of lying about his return. Maybe I missed it.

Hendry should learn to "chill on his constantly optimistic spin on injury reports?" This isn't 2005 anymore. How many times did the Cubs issue any statements as to firm timetables last year? None, that I can remember.

Talk about blowing something out of proportion... Why? The article makes a solid point that the organization usually under reports these injuries. Until they prove otherwise, its not bad form to speculate the worst. It has never been proven that the Cubs under report any more than other organizations (they don't have to give the information at all). It's the Chicago media that has called them liars. Which is strange because in all the previous incidents, the athlete was coming out and saying he wasn't hurt as well... In either case, it's a huge jump from "day to day" to "Wood seems unlikely to be ready for Opening Day." Could not agree more. I'm sick of all the "Cubs are lying" from the various radio shows and newspapers. I always found it very amusing that the Cubs were accused by the media of lying about Prior's achilles injury (an extremely difficult injury to forecast precise timetables for) when he took longer than initially thought to come back, yet hardly a peep came out of Boston after Nomar had essentially the same delayed return. The media has truly shaped public perception on this issue of the "cubs lying about injuries" if you ask me. Heck, last year, the Cubs had to stop giving any sort of timetables just to avoid any accusations down the road in case they ended up wrong. It's really quite silly. Like was said before, technically, they don't have to tell the media anything.

Man, if Marmol could ever get just a little more command, he could be a very good pitcher. If he doesn't, he'll have a hard time getting consistent time in the majors.

I think it's pretty early to say that Rothlisberger has lost anything. It was one off year after a pretty horrific offseason accident.

Fine, you are right. The Cubs can make as many empty-promises as they want in an effort to sign free agents and it will never bite them in the butt when they don't follow through with said promises. Got it. That said, I merely set forth a realistic hypothetical situation that might give Miller a legitimate reason for sulking if he is sent to the bullpen. I've never said he was actually given such a promise. In fact, I've agreed all along that the best man should win the job. I don't see the point of the nitpicking. Free agents follow the money. No one will care what Wade Miller has to say about he organization if they stick him in long relief after paying him to rehab last season. Seriously, if you're advocating that the team should put the objections of Wade Miller over the rest of the team, you're wrong. That's how you end up losing games, and being a perennial loser will do more to offset money than the feedback from a no name has been pitcher. Please see above. And see the rest of my post where I refute the notion that ticking off Wade Miller is somehow going to harm the club down the road. I was responding to your statement that I was advocating the team putting the objections of Wade Miller over the rest of the team. I say it again, may the best man win. If it's not Miller, I'm simply saying that he should be traded if he had an agreement with Hendry regarding starting or being traded. I do believe in maintaining the franchise's integrity with these sorts of arrangements because I see it as only helping the team down the road with other acquisitions that the Cubs are perceived in the industry as keeping their word, no matter what the talent level of the promisee. You didn't refute anything. You stated your opinion. Which I happen to disagree with. That's probably all that can really be said.

Fine, you are right. The Cubs can make as many empty-promises as they want in an effort to sign free agents and it will never bite them in the butt when they don't follow through with said promises. Got it. That said, I merely set forth a realistic hypothetical situation that might give Miller a legitimate reason for sulking if he is sent to the bullpen. I've never said he was actually given such a promise. In fact, I've agreed all along that the best man should win the job. I don't see the point of the nitpicking. Free agents follow the money. No one will care what Wade Miller has to say about he organization if they stick him in long relief after paying him to rehab last season. Seriously, if you're advocating that the team should put the objections of Wade Miller over the rest of the team, you're wrong. That's how you end up losing games, and being a perennial loser will do more to offset money than the feedback from a no name has been pitcher. Please see above.

I don't like the idea of making roster decisions based on service time, and who is going to put up the biggest stink. I agree with your premise, but we don't really know what the Cubs told Miller to entice him to sign again, either. If they told him he would be starting or traded, then he has every right to be upset if they send him to the bullpen. Regardless, he should make the rotation because he wins the job with everything else being equal, not because of ancillary concerns. It really doesn't matter what they told him. It doesn't? Let's not be too short-sighted here. In what way? Wade Miller is a washed up rag tag arm that wasn't getting much attention from anybody the past couple years. The Cubs paid him to rehab. They owe him nothing. They don't risk alienating future free agents by putting him in the bullpen if they feel that is what is best for the team. They didn't have to entice him to sign, they offered money, when most others weren't interested. Fine, you are right. The Cubs can make as many empty-promises as they want in an effort to sign free agents and it will never bite them in the butt when they don't follow through with said promises. Got it. That said, I merely set forth a realistic hypothetical situation that might give Miller a legitimate reason for sulking if he is sent to the bullpen. I've never said he was actually given such a promise. In fact, I've agreed all along that the best man should win the job. I don't see the point of the nitpicking.

double

I don't like the idea of making roster decisions based on service time, and who is going to put up the biggest stink. I agree with your premise, but we don't really know what the Cubs told Miller to entice him to sign again, either. If they told him he would be starting or traded, then he has every right to be upset if they send him to the bullpen. Regardless, he should make the rotation because he wins the job with everything else being equal, not because of ancillary concerns. It really doesn't matter what they told him. It doesn't? Let's not be too short-sighted here. Baseball players talk to each other, after all.

I don't like the idea of making roster decisions based on service time, and who is going to put up the biggest stink. I agree with your premise, but we don't really know what the Cubs told Miller to entice him to sign again, either. If they told him he would be starting or traded, then he has every right to be upset if they send him to the bullpen. Regardless, he should make the rotation because he wins the job with everything else being equal, not because of ancillary concerns.

I might be mistaken, but isn't his contract pretty back-loaded? So much so that after this year, his contract would be more like 2/16?

For one thing, the Lilly or Marquis signings aren't going to have an impact on whether or not the Cubs are able to extend Z. Secondly, during an offseason, you don't see guys under the control of a team for another year like Zambrano typically get extended prior to the free agent signings anyway. But, as my first paragraph stated, it really doesn't matter anyway. Third, I don't see the point of the Z/Guzman and Marquis/Lilly comparison. It wasn't a zero sum game with the signing of those two vs. extending Z. You are trying to make the Marquis signing have a negative impact on extending Z when there really isn't an evidence that that is the case. Essentially, what it boils down to is that your position really isn't ripe for argument at this time. If the Cubs don't end up extending Z, then maybe you can point to the Marquis signing as a reason why. Until then, it's just meaningless hand-wringing.