fromthestretch

umm... who would our closer be then??? Howry, a better pitcher than Dempster. Howry is not a closer.... you would be setting him up to fail.. just like you did with Latoya Hawkins Not every pitcher is the same. He could very well succeed in that role. There's absolutely no proof he would have the same struggles as Hawkins. Besides, Howry isn't the only option. Throw Wuertz out there. It's not like there are going to be a ton of save opportunities, and even if there are, it's not like the Cubs are pushing for a playoff spot. Hell, use a closer by committee if you have to. Eyre, Howry, and Wuertz are all capable of getting people out.

join this is a start, i guess. they should get rid of kruk and phillips too. I think he was a shade less dumb than Kruk, but still a moron. Take a guess: 1) Slept with the wrong person 2) Sexual harrasment and/or assault 3) Drugs/alcohol 4) Management realized his incompetence (hard to believe since Kruk and Phillips are still there) Item #2 didn't get Mike Tirico fired, but perhaps they're taking a stronger stance on that at ESPN these days. What happened w/ Tirico? You should read "ESPN the Uncensored History." It talks about how ESPN came to be, and the early days of the network. It also talks about some of the bigger on-air personalities and how they were off the air. There's a lot of talk about sexual harrassment, and some interesting stories regarding Tirico. If I remember correctly, there was one incident of him stalking a female employee.

join this is a start, i guess. they should get rid of kruk and phillips too. I think he was a shade less dumb than Kruk, but still a moron. Take a guess: 1) Slept with the wrong person 2) Sexual harrasment and/or assault 3) Drugs/alcohol 4) Management realized his incompetence (hard to believe since Kruk and Phillips are still there) Item #2 didn't get Mike Tirico fired, but perhaps they're taking a stronger stance on that at ESPN these days.

I don't know that I'd call him as big of a moron as Kruk and Phillips. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff he said on that show, but at least he had personality. He did tend to say a few things now and then that actually made sense, whereas the other two have yet to do so.

What's far more likely is that he'll end up pretty much right where he's at now. For the past year and a half, he's a mid-.270s hitter with a .320-ish OBP. That's not acceptable. He was also pretty lousy in 2002 (in Colorado of all places), as well, so it's not like this is a freak occurance.

So has Hill. 6/22/05 - in relief vs. MIL 4.1 IP, no hits, no runs, 2 BB, 6 K 7/25/05 (his next appearance...over a month later) - start vs. SF 5.0 IP, 5 H, 2 R (both earned), 2 BB, 5 K 7/30/05 - start vs. ARI 6.0 IP, 5 H, 2 R (both earned), 2 BB, 4 K Then he had two bad starts and they sent him down. EDIT: Sorry, goony. Didn't mean to repeat what you just posted.

Wait a sec. now? The job was his to win in ST and both Guzman and Marshall out pitched him. So lets not here the Cubs don't give Rich Hill many chances. It's not how many chances you are given. It's how you take advantage of those chances when you are given them.. So that's why I haven't won the lottery. Hill hasn't been given a chance. The worst thing is, I believe he still won't be given a chance. He'll get 3 maybe 4 starts and that's if he is good in his first one. Then when Marshall comes back he'll be moved to the bullpen or sent back to AAA. He's been given a decent chance and hasn't shown the ability to pitch at the ML level. Marshall has definately outpitched Hill this year and has earned his spot in the rotation. In Hill's four starts this year he has given up 5, 5, 3, 7 ER respectively. In Marshall's first four starts this year he gave up 4, 4, 2, 0 ER respectively. Marshall showed progress. Hill didn't. He shouldn't get more than 3 or 4 starts to show he can pitch at the ML level. If he has four outings like he did earlier in the year, he shouldn't be given many more. Now, on the other hand, if Hill shows progress, then keep him in the rotation. Marshall has been terrible since then, so I guess he hasn't really shown that much prorgress overall. http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=5905&position=P&page=0&type=full Just goes to show one, that four starts don't a career make. You should see a doctor for your myopia. Yeah, Marshall was terrible on May 1, May 6, May 17, May 27, June 2, June 7, and July 5. I realize that he hasn't been great recently, but if Marshall has been "terrible", how would you classify Hill? So Hill should be sent down after four consecutive starts of 5, 5, 3, and 7 earned runs (20 total runs), but Marshall gets to keep his job after four consecutive starts of 5, 4, 4, and 4 earned runs (17 total...from 6/13-30)? What's the cutoff? 18 runs? 19 runs? No one is denying that Hill has stuggled. But four starts this season is not enough to gauge how well he'll pitch in the long run. He had a few good outings last season, and has been indicated several times, it's highly doubtful he'd be any worse than Rusch has been, if given that spot.

Lance Dickson

The Cubs already have a leadoff hitter who can't get on base. Why would they need another?

I have tickets along the first base line for the game, so I'll try to catch his arm when it flies off his body on a pickoff attempt.

That probably has more to do with the fact that he was only there for 4 1/2 seasons.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/sports_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_83_4860206,00.html Some other site had Ohman listed as one of the players being shopped, as well, but I can't remember what site it was.

I mentioned this yesterday, but I think the Cubs can fill a lot of needs for the Dodgers. The Dodgers could use Maddux, Walker and Nevin plus possibly a bullpen arm. Maddux gives them the starting pitcher they want. Walker gives them another option at 2B (which they need with Kent having nagging injuries all season) and 1B (you always need a backup plan in case Nomar gets hurt). Nevin can play some 3B (which they could use with Mueller out), could give them some right-handed power off the bench, and can fill in at 1B and LF occasionally. Instead of trading those guys to three separate teams and getting marginal prospects in return, package them together to a team that could actually use all three of them and get something good in return.

Or how about Willy Aybar of the Dodgers? They have Dewitt/Guzman/Mueller/LaRoche at third base in the org, and Kemp/Either/Drew/Repko/ in the OF, I think Aybar can be attainable in the Maddux deal. And how about Victor Diaz? I think the Cubs could get this young man for Walker. The Mets will re-sign Floyd, and have Beltran, IMO have Lastings (who they should keep) Milledge, and Xavier Nady. I think Diaz can be available. And a perfect compliment to Jones in LF. I would like to hear everyone else's thoughts on these 2 and know if anyone thinks that either or both could be a possiblitly. I'm not enamored with Pena, and Boston can keep him. And I would be intrigued with Betemit, but I have the feeling that ATL would rather trade Renteria and/or Giles to open up a spot for Betemit. So, my guess Betemit ain't available. But I do believe Victor Diaz and Willy Aybar would be a nice young guys to get at the deadline. I'd probably rather have Pena than Diaz, but I wouldn't complain about getting Diaz. Pena's shown quite a bit of power already at the big league level. Obviously, there is some work to be done on his plate discipline. Pena has been adequate when playing CF, whereas I think Diaz is primarily just a corner OF (please correct me if I'm wrong on that). I think they are only a little over a month apart age-wise. I agree that Atlanta is more likely to deal Giles than Betemit. Either of them would look good as a Cub. No objection to Aybar.

Does that mean he only hits the ball 400 feet instead of 500? :wink: I've never seen him park one on a rooftop, if that tells you anything. Honest to , the first time I saw Wily Mo, the first thing I thought was "how the hell does Glenallen Hill have a kid this old". Apparantly, chicks dig the long ball...even at an early age.

If he's willing to accept a bench role and is used properly, I'd have no problem with it. It would be nice to have some right-handed power off the bench. My biggest concern would be similar to several people's concerns about Neifi...how would the manager use him? Even Neifi can be useful* as the 25th man on the roster, if he's not being trotted out there for 3-4 starts per week. *not $2.5 million/year useful...just useful

Never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with Guillen's point of view on something:

Wow. As far as wins go, he'll probably set a personal best this year. But he hasn't exactly been lights out. A 4.78 ERA (more than a run higher than his career), 27 homers allowed already in 122.1 IP, strikeout rate is down just a shade. You can make the argument that he's adjusting to a new league and that he's at least been healthy this year. But for that kind of money, I'd like to be fairly certain that I can get 200 innings out of him per season (something he has yet to do), and that he'll get that ERA back down. With their offense, run support isn't as much of a concern, so he can still win quite a bit there with an ERA in the mid-4.00's. But for an avg. of $10 million a year, you'd hope he could bring that down.

Besides general business ethics, yes, the commissioner's office would most definitely get involved. I would also imagine the Dodgers would do everything within their power to get Ramirez to waive the opt-out if LA was giving the Cubs anything of value in exchange for him. They could renegotiate his current contract, offer another guaranteed year, perhaps offer him an opt-out clause after 2007 in exchange for a little more money next year.

The Walker thing was poorly handled by just about everyone involved.

If being a player's manager had any value, I'd be all for quotes like this. But it doesn't have any value. The quotes don't cause any harm, but they give you glimpse of the real motivation and thought process of the man. Trading Maddux is good for the Cubs organization. Maybe it's bad for Dusty because he needs somebody who actually understands baseball to be in his dugout, but it's not bad for the Cubs. Furthermore, Dusty obviously has some sort of hex over Jim Hendry. Hendry went bonkers trying to woo the guy over here when nobody else was considering him as manager. Hendry wanted to give him an extension a long time ago, but it seems MacPhail's decision to wait on Hendry's extension is the only thing that kept it from happening. Hendry has gotten everything Baker has wanted, with neither man apparantly realizing that a team full of speed defenders isn't going to win baseball games. He's gotten him his veteran bench, despite the fact that a rookie bench could have outplayed them for much cheaper (thus allowing more money for impact players). No, the quote isn't that big of a deal by itself. A lot of his quotes are no big deal. The problem is he has one a week that shows you his priorities, which are misplaced. I agree. I'm not a fan of his philosophies. I just don't have any problems with those types of quotes at face value. The quote itself really doesn't hurt anything.

The Cubs have a lot the Dodgers could use at the moment. They've reportedly expressed interest in Maddux. They have the middle relief help that LA could use. Dempster may interest them as a closer. And with Kent out Todd Walker might even interest them. If the rumors of bad blood between Colletti and the Cubs are true, I don't see much happening on this front. It's become quite funny to me. We have all of their missing pieces. They could use a third baseman, too. Not that I advocate trading Ramirez, but one could really put together a blockbuster deal with Walker, Ramirez and Maddux to the Dodgers. Even to a lesser extent, Walker, Maddux, and Nevin. Nevin could play some third, or they could put him at first and move Nomar to third.

Thanks fer yer kind werds Perfesser Woo! I ser hopes my Rgement now meets wit yor aprovel! :lol: You assertation that Sammy carried the team through it's dismal years is funny! Oh, to be the King of Crap like Sammy was! And if I'm not allowed to assume some things (i.e., Sammy's visable change in body shape and dramatic drop in performance could have been caused by his quick w/d from some unknown substances) then you are not allowed to assume some things. Namely that we wouldn't have made it to the playoffs in '98 and '03 without him (however horribly those two events turned out in the end). We would have had someone palying right field, agreed? Maybe we would have not only made the palyoffs, but gone on to win the WS w/o Slammin Sammy - we just don't know . . . And so I guess neither one of us really knows the truth, eh? Sammy is God - Sammy is a tool. All we know for sure is that not one GM wanted him enough to even ask nicely fpor his services! What's that say about your hero??? I'm uncomfortable with all the worship - that's all . . . It's one thing to not like Sammy. It's another to completely ignore what he did on the field. There are maybe 10-12 hitters in the history of the game that you can argue have had a season equal to or better than Sosa's 2001 campaign. His numbers speak for themselves. Three 60-homer seasons. Led the league in homers in two seasons when he didn't hit 60. An MVP award. Led the league in total bases three times (finished second once). The man could hit, there's no denying that. As for steroid allegations, maybe he took something illegal, maybe he didn't. However, there are a lot of hitters who have been caught taking something who haven't even put up good numbers, let alone great ones like Sammy. And judging by the number of pitchers who have been caught using performance-enhancing drugs, chances are Sosa faced a lot of "juiced-up" pitchers during his career. People aren't calling it the "steroid era" simply because only one or two players too performance-enhancing drugs. Not excusing any possible drug-use by Sammy, just pointing a few things out. Sosa's probably better off retiring. He might still be effective in a platoon situation, as he did hit lefties well last season, but I doubt he wants to be a part-time player. No one's claiming he's a saint, but he was a great hitter for quite a few seasons as a Cub. There's no denying that.

What exactly is it going to hurt, trading a declining star who actually has a bit of a market? Is it so bad to... A) Get some players back that we will have control of for much longer than Maddux B) Give Rich Hill 2 months to pitch ? I relize that he a great tool to have to talk to the young pitchers, but he's only going to be around for 2 months. And I really want to know how it's going to hurt Dusty, do they go and get beers together? I'm far from being a fan of Dusty, but I really don't have much of a problem with comments like this. This is the primary reason he gets a rep as a "player's manager." Plus, this type of comment really has no bearing on whether Hendry will deal Maddux or not, nor does it hurt his trade value. This is a fairly harmless comment. Obviously, we don't know if Baker truly believes that Maddux is more valuable to the team in a lost season than whatever he could bring back in a trade. If he does, then that's another issue. On last night's broadcast, Len and Bob were talking about comments Maddux had made prior to the game regarding the home plate umpire. Apparantly, Maddux has had some issues with that ump in the past. But he said nothing but good things about him to the media. Just like Maddux isn't going to come out and say anything even remotely negative about the ump, Dusty isn't going to say anything negative about Maddux when he would gain nothing by doing so. It's all just PR.

He's certainly not a Beane-player. My guess is San Diego. He may not be a "Beane-player," but he actually wouldn't be a bad pickup for the A's for the remainder of the season. He can hit the ball, he can play 1B and 3B, and his salary isn't overly expensive. Chavez has been plagued by forearm injuries this year, and Johnson is going through a sophomore slump. It wouldn't be a bad move for Oakland.