CubColtPacer

He has had continued dizziness. They thought it might just be an ear infection but he was still dizzy after the infection cleared up so they DL'd him to be safe. Is that your personal opinion, because I just searched him in google news and they say it is stress. It's both. There was a personal issue also that he asked to get away from the team for a couple of weeks, but he wasn't playing much before that because of the continued dizziness. It was less of an issue than they thought originally for why he went on the DL (when I stopped following it) but they said it did make it easier for them to honor his request knowing he likely wasn't going to play much anyway.

He has had continued dizziness. They thought it might just be an ear infection but he was still dizzy after the infection cleared up so they DL'd him to be safe.

After 2007 would have been perfect For straight value, sure. But it would have also left the Cubs with a huge hole at 1B in 2008 (at least what would reasonably be expected to be a huge hole). You don't trade away one of your key hitters (which Lee was still at the time) when you have absolutely no idea how you're going to replace him, even if you do think he will decline and not be worth his contract. By the time the Cubs knew they had a potential fill in there, his 10/5 rights would have already kicked in. Yeah, it's really hard for a playoff team to trade a 31 year old guy who just posted a .913 OPS when there's no successor waiting in the wings. Hoff had just OPSd .917 the year before, but that was after an .852 in 2006 and .663 in 2005. 2007 was also Hoff's only year above a .900 OPS in the minors up to that point. Hoffpauir also had a severe knee injury that ended his season in 2007, and of course that .917 was in the severely hitter friendly PCL. He had been just starting to get a chance at a bench job when he got hurt..he certainly wasn't close yet to being an option for the starting job.

After 2007 would have been perfect For straight value, sure. But it would have also left the Cubs with a huge hole at 1B in 2008 (at least what would reasonably be expected to be a huge hole). You don't trade away one of your key hitters (which Lee was still at the time) when you have absolutely no idea how you're going to replace him, even if you do think he will decline and not be worth his contract. By the time the Cubs knew they had a potential fill in there, his 10/5 rights would have already kicked in.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2009/268290.html That's impressive? That was a typo. Obviously if he's walking in 15.5 percent of his plate appearances his OBP wouldn't be that close to his average. His current line is .284/.400/.483

What don't you get? It makes sense to me. At least indicates that it is definite that he spends a month more on the disabled list and then a possibility for more. The may be indicates that it might not be so definite. They don't really belong together in the same sentence. However, it really isn't a big deal. The meaning was still pretty clear from the sentence.

Close. His 2nd of the season. Happy to see Lee continue his great hot streak. Without his neck injury in May, he probably would have been over .800 already. As it is, he's coming up close to it rather quickly. Also nice to see better performances from the bullpen all around. Soriano probably should sit a couple of days to rest that knee. But it's going to be hard to sit him since he hates to sit and they already want to sit Soto and Bradley is hurt.

Unfortunately, no. Bradley is hurt. Z is available if you needed him, but I think I would rather trust Hoff to try to lift one to the OF. But you're right, this is a bad situation for him.

That's fine. But last winter, there were serious doubts if Fontenot could play 3rd (although he had played a little 3rd in the minors), and it was pretty much assured that he couldn't play SS. So the Cubs would still have had to get a 2nd backup middle infielder that played SS, and then Fontenot would have backed up 2nd and maybe 3rd. He wouldn't have gotten very many at-bats at all this year unless something major happened to one of Hudson or Ramirez. If Hudson was willing to sign a 2 year deal for low money, I would think about it. But giving up a draft pick for 1 year of production when there's a reasonable chance you can get slightly worse production from a guy you already have on your roster? That doesn't make very much sense to me.

Sadly Kerry Wood's year has not been anything to write home about, so I don't see how you can guarantee different results. Getting rid of Kerry Wood for financial reasons did not mean he had to trade for another multi million dollar reliever with a significantly worse track record. I hated losing Wood, but I understood the financial motivation, what I don't understand is then turning around and wasting a ton of cash on Gregg, just like trying to trade DeRosa at a high and then wasting the financial benefit on a guy like Miles. Because Jim Hendry sucks. We could have had Dunn and Hudson. I have no idea if the Cubs were interested in Hudson, but that is one thing that really irks me. We could have Hudson for the price we're paying Aaron [expletive] Miles. Hudson was all because of Mike Fontenot. It's not like the Cubs could have signed Hudson to play the role that Miles is playing. Fontenot would have likely needed to have been traded and then the Cubs would have lost their 1st round pick. Plus, even if Hudson has a good season, now you either need to sign him for a ton of money or have no second baseman. So I can see why they would have rather gambled on Fontenot than sign Hudson.

Brad Snyder would be the best bet to replace him, but since hes on the DL, Taguchi San woudl probably get the nod because of his experience. I can hardly wait. That might be the last straw for me. It would be between Taguchi, Fuld, and DuBois, and Fulds lefty edge might give him the edge. They don't necessarily have to call up an OF. They would still have 5 OF's even with Bradley gone. They really could use another backup IF who can play 2nd and 3rd (since they're back down to 1 with all the roster moves) but I don't know if there is anybody else that can realistically be picked. They probably would call up an OF for a few days until Freel's 15 days is up and then send that OF down at that time.

Eh, it's not that hard. People rave about Lee but he doesn't seem to to anything impressive defensively. I doubt very much the numbers people have shown for defensive ability at 1st. The best two things that Lee does that makes him very impressive defensively IMO 1) His range on balls down the line is very good. He can stop a ball that normally goes for a double into the corner. Sometimes he doesn't actually get the runner on it, but it's still a whole lot better than other first basemen who would watch it sail past them. 2) Picking throws. He has had a small problem with this the last week or so, but he is normally one of the best at it. Also, he doesn't swipe at the ball like most first basemen do, so when he does have a problem it's not because he completely missed it which allows the baserunner to also move up a base in addition to being safe.

im not saying that it was a direct effect but this team looks lazy and unmotivated, completely different from last year. All their emotional outbursts don't show motivation? Most people would say that the team is out of control with their passion. I don't see how the team could possibly be called unmotivated.

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion. Zona got to the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record last year. Pitt recently won a Super Bowl as a 6 seed. I really do think, after all is said and done, alot of this analysis winds up being just bunk. Give me the 6 seed Steelers and a Super Bowl championship over the other team that was better, but didn't make it. I'm an emotional guy. I'll take that emotional Super Bowl run from a team that maybe wasn't all that great on paper any day. The championship is really all that matters to me. That goes for all sports. Of course you're going to take the Super Bowl title. If I could only relive one Colts season, I'd choose the 2006 season over the 04 or 05 (although it would be closer than it appears since the 06 season was so disappointing for over a month, while 04 and 05 just had a disappointing end but was still absolutely a wonderful ride.) But when you realize how much luck plays a part in determining who wins the SB, it makes it hard just to care about who wins. The Steelers in 05 were one step away from losing the divisional round to the Colts. The Colts in 06 had a couple big bounces of the ball that went their way or they wouldn't have beat the Patriots that year. The Giants needed a miracle play that had very little to do with skill to beat the Patriots. The Steelers this year could have lost if any one of a handful of close plays hadn't gone their way against the Cardinals. It's 2 very different ways to enjoy the sport, and I love to have both of them. First, figuring out the best team, which is usually done over the course of the regular season. It's fun to see how teams might match up or figuring out who has been more dominant. Why do so many people do analysis? Because it's fun to see all the different scenarios and what could happen. Plus it gives you a better idea of how your team will stack up against other teams. Then you have the playoffs, which only have a tangential relationship with the best team. The fun in that is the same as March Madness..anything can happen, and most times games are close. Unless it's involving my team, I only care about teams playing close exciting games, and the NFL playoffs usually deliver. Sure, the end result is often determined by who gets the right luck, but the fun is watching that happen. It wouldn't be fun if it wasn't so unexpected. Plus the luck factor has helped me not get so emotional either. I'm an emotional guy as well, but I also know some things are out of the players control. The Colts lost a playoff game last year in which any of 3 bounces down the stretch (including an actual coin flip) would have won them the game. None of them happened, and they lost. But it wasn't upsetting to me anymore, because I knew the team had played well. It detracts from my enjoyment of sports if I base the whole season on the literal flip of a coin. I want to be able to enjoy each game of the regular season and playoffs for what it is..good competition played at a fantastic level. If you're always looking towards the Super Bowl, you can only enjoy one game every 15-20 years. You can never be satisfied until you have the win, and then you immediately want another one. Personally, I'm just happy that after 10 years during the 90's where the Colts were horrific most of the time, they have been incredibly entertaining to watch the last 6 years. And they still would have been a joy to watch if they hadn't won a SB title, although that was the absolute best icing on the cake.

Well, not necessarily. The best team and the champion aren't the same thing, especially given the nature of the NFL playoff format. That said, the analysis is still a bunch of nonsense. I can't see any measure being worthwhile other than winning the Super Bowl. If that's not the measure, then it's just blowing wind. Therefore, if your system isn't predicting Super Bowl winners -- it's rather pointless. We can argue who's good and who's not until we're old & gray, and still accomplish nothing. I guess that's why you wind up with articles like this in the offseason: people want to argue pointlessly about stuff. For me, who wins the Super Bowl: they had the great season, they had the success. After all the pontificating about who might be good and who might not be, that pretty much ends it for me. Then there really is no point to any system. Nobody can predict Super Bowl winners because it runs so much on luck and momentum which can go to any team at any time. Execution over 1 game also plays a huge role, and even the best teams can't turn on their A game at will. Besides, if you had to pick teams for next year, would you rather want the teams that people said were the 4 best teams, or the teams in the conference championship game and Super Bowl? History would suggest that the teams in the first category do better than those in the second in predicting future seasons.

Overall player, or taking into account both contract and playing time they received?

I think they would. There were multiple teams interested in him at the price Hendry ended up paying at the time the Cubs signed him.. Did his agent tell you that or Jim Hendry? Nobody was signing anybody at the time they got Miles. The only active teams were the Yankees signing the big tickets items, and everybody else was sitting on their hands waiting out the market. And Hendry got aggressive going after an unnecessary utility man who was non-tendered by a division rival that has to actually think when they spend money. The reports that I read said that Miles had an offer from the Cards for about the same money when he signed with the Cubs. The Cardinals non-tendered him. There's virtually no way they found it a better deal to sign him to a 2Y/5M deal vs. whatever [expletive] arbitration award he'd get. Well, he had gotten a 400,000 raise after 07 in his second arbitration year. He then had easily his best season before the 3rd arbitration year which is normally the year that players can get a bigger bump than normal. He probably could have gotten 2.5-3 million in arbitration. The report said that the Cardinals were offering something like 2 years, 4 million...which I still find strange even with that arbitration number.

Did I miss something? Hes been playing with a sore knee for a little while now after banging it against the wall making a catch, I think it was last weekend. It was actually over a month ago that he originally hurt it. April 23rd. But it has apparently been getting worse the last couple weeks.

That's not the first time I've made that stupid mistake. I know there are two more teams in the NL, and when I think about it as 2 more in the one league, I end up with 32 instead of 30. Anyway, that's still 3.333333 players per team, and if we add Aramis as the .333333 guy, we have our quota. Our quota for a .500 team, but the goal is to be well above .500, well above average, and hopefully at least one of the top 8 teams, which is going to be difficult. Exactly. If we want to be exactly league average, we are doing great. Also, "turning it around" for 1 week or even 2 is really relative. Bradley would have to OPS 1.200 for, what, a month to get into the top 100? The part I'm most worried about is that our starters, for the most part, have been pretty solid. If they start stinking, even if the hitting gets better, we might be looking at hovering around .500 for a while. If Bradley had a 1.200 OPS for a month (assuming 100 plate appearances which is actually slightly low if he played the entire month) he'd have a .936 OPS overall at the end of that month. To break into that top 100, he'd have to have an .856 OPS for that full month. I know you were exaggerating for effect, but it just illustrates how few at-bats most of our regulars have had. They still have time to make up their bad starts..even though it's June, their number of at-bats aren't at those June levels where your numbers really start to stabilize.

The Padres are both looking to dump payroll and they are planning to have Adrian Gonzalez be the core of their team. He's pretty much untradeable unless a team severely overpays for him, and even then I'm not sure the Cubs would be in the running because the Padres have consistently wanted pitching in any trade talks. Lee would have absolutely no use to them. While Lee might have positive value for some team out there, he has negative value to the Padres because of his contract. Vitters would be a nice piece to start, but it would take another couple like him and also not include Lee in the deal (1 of these other stud prospects being a pitcher) for the Padres to even consider it IMO.

I thought hiding these Rule 5 guys on the DL was illegal? Is it after a certain date that it becomes OK? It's not illegal, but if he doesn't stay on the active roster for long enough this year he'll have to do it next year before he can have the Rule 5 restrictions taken off of him.

Not that I disagree with you, but why do you think this? Well, I do believe first that being left-handed does help him establish a role in the bullpen. If Wells goes down there, he's easily the 4th man on the totem pole and could slide farther very quickly. They would probably stick him in the long reliever role who would never pitch. Even with setup men, to have both a right-handed and a left-handed setup men can really help balance the workload. It's not something you bend over backwards to have but it can be beneficial. You can somewhat play matchups (although not batter by batter..you need to commit to one of them for that inning). Marshall would do really well in that role and would find plenty of work, which would also protect Guzman and Marmol's arms a little bit. I also think that Wells over the course of the season will be much more likely to allow baserunners than Marshall, and so Wells will almost certainly have to be a guy that starts innings while Marshall can come in during the middle of an inning.

I pretty much have similar thoughts as others here. There are good and bad things in this move. It does strengthen the bullpen. I believe also that Marshall transitions better to the bullpen than Wells would. At the same time, Marshall is likely going to be a better pitcher than Wells this season, which would indicate him being in the rotation. Then you add in Marshall's IP concerns, and it becomes a tangled web. If Marshall becomes a setup guy, then it might be a good thing overall for the team. The difference between Marshall and Wells might not be strong enough that Marshall pitching high leverage innings could overcome it. If Marshall becomes a LOOGY (most likely) or a long reliever (less likely) then it becomes a decently bad thing for the team, albeit one that is easily fixed later. The other good thing about it is that if Marshall gets himself in the bullpen now, Lou might be willing to use him as one of his primary relievers in the playoffs, which he probably wouldn't do if he had been starting all year. That's a very helpful thing if the Cubs make the playoffs. I do feel bad for Marshall though. He doesn't deserve it. And I do believe the Cubs are doing it for the wrong reasons (which is one of the reasons I think Marshall will be a LOOGY). But I don't think it's going to end up being a terrible move for the team.

Sandberg believes strongly in small ball and being aggressive. Bunt runners over, hit and run, straight steals, manufacturing runs, playing the game the right way.

Jake Fox has no development left in him. His future is as a bench player, so how does it hurt to have him as a bench player right now? It's not like they aren't trusting him in pinch-hitting situations. He's getting his at-bats, but he's getting them the way he likely will get them for most of his career..1 a day. You really think the occasional pinch hitting in a high pressure situation or a throwaway at bat late in a dugout is the way to use a 26 year old? There is always time for more development, and he gets little out of it. He needs to go through the motions of being a starter. If he's not starting two or three times a week he ought to be elsewhere. Or, if the Cubs don't think he's good enough to start, find a team that does. The Cubs have been trying to find a team who thought he was good enough to even be a consistent bench player since this past winter. There has been very little interest from any other club. Jake also still carries the label as being uncoachable from his history in the minors. That combined with his terrible defense makes him a poor fit for pretty much every team. I really don't see how his defense is going to develop. It hasn't developed in a variety of positions over the last 4 years..another couple months isn't going to make much of a difference. If he's going to stick in the major leagues, it's either going to be as a pinch-hitter, a DH, or possibly a 1st baseman for a team who is desperate. Let's put this another way. This should be Jake Fox's last option year. If he stays in the minors all season, he has to either be traded (without options, you wouldn't get anything for him) or he'd have to make the major league team next year out of spring training. If he's going to have to make the major league team as a pinch-hitter next year, what's the problem with bringing him up as a pinch-hitter this year?