fromthestretch

That's doubtful. The Yankees view any season in which they don't win the WS as disastrous, and Boston goes insane every season. I think those are both higher pressure than the Cubs job. Imagine if Dusty got the results he got in either of those two places. He made it 4 full years in Chicago, 3 of which he was accepted by the vast majority of the public and media as exactly the right guy for the job. He'd have been killed after the 2003 playoff loss and 2004 collapse. Instead people talked about how lucky we were to have back to back winning seasons. Considering how they fired Grady Little after a 95-win season and a series victory over Oakland in the ALDS in 2003, I think Dusty's fate would have been similar. He wouldn't have even been around in 2004.

Just to be clear, are you claiming that Kerry Wood tanked on purpose in his walk year during what should be the peak of his career so Dusty would get fired? That has to be one of the worst conspiracy theories I've ever heard.

That's a little extreme. a little extreme but he speaks truth. I've sat right above the netting behind home plate before, and those balls were flying past us like hot cakes. If you weren't always on alert, there was always that chance of being hit by a ball. And after nailing his wife in the ribs, he realizes that it's not such a crazy idea to think that you can seriously injure somebody sitting up there there are a lot of seats I wouldn't take my child too - I don't think its extreme at all. That's the point. If you're concerned about the possibility of an injury, then why stay there? When me and my wife took our newborn to the park we made sure that we sat in a seat that took out the risk of our baby getting hurt. The seats aren't the greatest but you know your child is safe. Considering the size of the major league ballparks I think it's extreme to compare a taking a child to the ballpark to playing Russian Roulette. huh? Its not a direct comparison - he's using the phrase russian roulette to demonstrate that sooner or later someone will get unlucky and get hurt. he's not implying its deer hunter going on back there. didn't he even say they should move the family section? Of course, he could just buy them tickets but . . . Yep, but he also said that moving the family section just puts other people at risk in that same area. Regardless of whether it's family or the average fan, someone will most likely be in those seats.

That's a little extreme. a little extreme but he speaks truth. I've sat right above the netting behind home plate before, and those balls were flying past us like hot cakes. If you weren't always on alert, there was always that chance of being hit by a ball. And after nailing his wife in the ribs, he realizes that it's not such a crazy idea to think that you can seriously injure somebody sitting up there there are a lot of seats I wouldn't take my child too - I don't think its extreme at all. That's the point. If you're concerned about the possibility of an injury, then why stay there? When me and my wife took our newborn to the park we made sure that we sat in a seat that took out the risk of our baby getting hurt. The seats aren't the greatest but you know your child is safe. Considering the size of the major league ballparks I think it's extreme to compare a taking a child to the ballpark to playing Russian Roulette. I think his family sits there because that's the section reserved for the players' families. Regardless, it wouldn't cost the team much at all to put up either a higher screen or some netting to protect the fans in those seats.

It's only risky in the sense that small-minded old people might question it. Personally, I think it would be a bigger risk to continue hitting him in the middle of the order while clinging to hope that his 30-homer power returns late in his career. At this stage, he's more valuable to this team hitting at the top of the order.

However, Yahoo failed to mention that his biggest asset is his high OBP, instead focusing on the fact that he's not fast, making him an odd choice. The writer was correct to focus in on the lackof speed. That is the story: the Padres are projected to go against the NL book next season. Numerous people around here will nods their heads and say 'about time' that OBP and not speed be looked at as prime leadoff material, but the fact is this is a risky, untraditional move. That is what makes it story in the first place. Untraditional? Perhaps. Risky? Hardly. They aren't the first team to do this. Brian Downing hit leadoff for California and Texas late in his career, and he was slower than Giles. Youkilis for the Red Sox is a much more recent example. If you have a guy that can get on base at a .380+ clip with mediocre power, bat him leadoff. He doesn't have to have Rickey Henderson speed to be a good leadoff hitter.

I find it really disturbing that a strained hammy caused a purple bruise. Has anyone here ever heard of such of a thing? It certainly doesn't inspire confidence. I had a horrible hammy episode early this year and I would've been scared to death if my leg had turned purple from it. http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060922&content_id=1676606&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb A guy I played softball with a few years ago had a big bruise on the back of his leg after hurting his hamstring. If it's injured badly enough, bruising can happen.

Are you saying that all sportswriters are created equal? The word "observant" doesn't apply to most sportswriters. Miles is an exception, not the norm.

Like you said, a lot depends on who he was going to pencil in at 3B and 2B, but I don't think it would have been a good move to put Cabrera at 1B. He can handle 3B defensively. Plus, they've probably gotten more offense out of Jacobs at 1B than they would have received from anyone on that team at 3B had they moved Cabrera to first. Not that Jacobs is an All-Star or anything, but in my opinion Cabrera (3B) + Jacobs/Helms platoon (1B) > Cabrera (1B) + scrap-heap third baseman. Even if you don't like Jacobs' offense, it would be easier to find a first baseman than a third baseman. Of course, if you want to get creative, you could play Cabrera at third and Jacobs at first against right-handers, with Cabrera moving to first and Helms playing third against lefties. I would have also left Uggla at 2B. It's much easier to find an outfielder with those numbers than it is to find a second baseman with that kind of offense. I had also read that Girardi wanted to keep Willingham at catcher, which I thought was a good idea. His offense has been good for a left fielder, but would have been great as a catcher. If they wanted to get his bat in the lineup more, put him in LF once or twice a week when he's not catching.

And Les Walrond. Well played. Ryu kidding? I Juan Jim to Rusch Glendon out the door, and Mabry I'll buy tickets again. Howry we gonna compete? That's Rich. Ohman. cut it out guys your killing me!!! :lol: I guess we'll just have to grin and Barrett when Hendry goes Dempster diving for low-priced free agents this offseason.

Maybe he could be a poor man's Dan Uggla. Moore was initially drafted as a shortstop, so maybe he could handle it defensively.

Which wouldn't be too far off Eckstein's career OBP/SLG of .351/.362.

I don't think Nixon's worth that much at this stage of his career, especially if you're going to platoon him. Also, I'd rather have Ohman in the pen with Marshall getting his innings at Iowa as a starter. Marmol should probably be starting at Iowa, as well, with Aardsma taking that bullpen spot.

Well for the difference in salary, I think it would be worth it to go with Marshall or Guzman than signing Zito or Schmidt and another starter. However, if we could get Gil Meche signed to a decent contract, I wouldn't be opposed to that. I posed this question in another thread and didn't get a response: Why do people support the idea of signing Meche? He's never thrown 200 innings in a season, he's gives up a fair share of homers, his career WHIP is terrible, and he's put up those crappy numbers pitching roughly half his games in a pitcher's park. This year, his numbers are OK, but his WHIP is still terrible. The best you could hope for is a Matt Clement type of turnaround from him. I think you could get similar production from one or a combination of the young pitchers the Cubs have.

While it would be nice to have him on the bench, Catalanotto hasn't played CF in his 10-year major league career. Defensively, he's primarily a corner outfielder these days.

While I agree with your offseason strategy, I can't agree with the above statement. I think it's highly more likely that Theriot could match or even exceed Eckstein's 2006 line of .289/.348/.328 than it is that Cedeno could even come close to Tejada's production.

If Rocker wasn't lights-out, then your expectations for a lights-out closer are way too freaking high. And Smoltz was only a "solid closer?" He was a dominant closer. Didn't have anybody like Scot Shields? Greg McMichael's rookie year was better than any season Shields has had so far. Not only that, but he followed it up with a few other good seasons. Chris Hammond had an 0.95 ERA in 76 innings for the Braves in 2002. Remlinger had great years there. You saw everyone I listed earlier. They have routinely gotten great performances from their bullpen. It seems to me- and I admit that my memory is a little fuzzy as far as the Braves are concerned- but haven't the Braves almost always struggled to score runs in the post season. I seem to remember David Justice saying that the Braves valued nothing except starting pitching. They did occasionally struggle to score runs in the postseason, but it wasn't always against great pitching. For example, look at the 1998 NLCS. They got shut down by Sterling Hitchcock...twice. I don't think anyone would call Sterling Hitchcock a great pitcher. There's a big difference between having great pitching and getting a great performance or two by a mediocre pitcher in a 5- or 7-game series.

If Rocker wasn't lights-out, then your expectations for a lights-out closer are way too freaking high. And Smoltz was only a "solid closer?" He was a dominant closer. Didn't have anybody like Scot Shields? Greg McMichael's rookie year was better than any season Shields has had so far. Not only that, but he followed it up with a few other good seasons. Chris Hammond had an 0.95 ERA in 76 innings for the Braves in 2002. Remlinger had great years there. You saw everyone I listed earlier. They have routinely gotten great performances from their bullpen.

What are you talking about? They've gotten great performances from their bullpen. Smoltz, Rocker, Lightenberg, Wohlers, McMichael, Mercker, Stanton, Howell, Bedrosian, Embree, Seanez, Remlinger, McGlinchy, Hammond, Holmes, Gryboski, and even Alfonseca, Juan Cruz, Terrell Wade and Jose Cabrera had very good years for them during that run. Look at their 2002 bullpen and tell me that isn't a good bullpen.

If great pitching beats great hitting 99 times out 100, the Braves would have had more than one World Series title in the past 14 years.

I like Theriot, but even remotely comparing him to a Sandberg at this stage is absurd. Hoping that he'll develop the same way a Hall of Famer did is beyond wishful thinking. i think you have missed the point. it was an example and not a comparision. I don't think there is any point in using a Hall of Famer as an example of that in a discussion regarding a 27-year old with a career minor league slugging percentage under .340. Not only has Theriot never hit more than two home runs in a single minor league season, his numbers in the doubles department doesn't exactly lead one to believe there will a lot more power in his future. Sandberg was 21 when he reached the majors. He had a much better chance to develop more power. Hall of Famers are not the norm. For every Sandberg and Bagwell that developed power after they reached the majors, there are hundreds of players that never did. No one is bad-mouthing Theriot; he's certainly a solid player and would be a good guy to have on the bench. Could he be a starting second baseman? Perhaps. Are there better options available this off-season? Definitely. At this point, there's no good reason to think he's the solution at second for 2007. Now, if the Cubs significantly improve other positions and the pitching staff, you can afford to give Theriot a chance to compete for the second base job next spring.

He tore up his knee trying to impersonate Ozzie Smith and doing a cartwheel. That's right. I knew it was something like that. Perhaps that wasn't the wisest decision, considering that Harkey was six inches taller and about 70 pounds heavier than Ozzie and that Ozzie did cartwheels on at least a semi-regular basis.

I like Theriot, but even remotely comparing him to a Sandberg at this stage is absurd. Hoping that he'll develop the same way a Hall of Famer did is beyond wishful thinking.

Over his last 10 starts, Hill has the following line: 6-2, 2.23 ERA, 64.2 IP, 44 H, 16 ER, 6 HR, 17 BB, 61 K I can pretty much guarantee Bullinger, Foster, and Gonzalez never had a run like that. They all had their moments, but none of them really "showed great signs." Harkey was a disappointment. It's not really fair, though. Harkey got hurt and was never the same afterwards. If he hadn't been injured, I think he would have been at least a solid major league pitcher for years. I agree with that. That doesn't make it any less disappointing though. Didn't Harkey also injure himself goofing off in the outfield before a game?

Over his last 10 starts, Hill has the following line: 6-2, 2.23 ERA, 64.2 IP, 44 H, 16 ER, 6 HR, 17 BB, 61 K I can pretty much guarantee Bullinger, Foster, and Gonzalez never had a run like that. They all had their moments, but none of them really "showed great signs." Harkey was a disappointment.