CubColtPacer

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?

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.

The Cubs pitching was 3rd best in the NL in 2008 and 2nd best in 2007 (as far as team ERA). Even this year, which has been a struggle pitching wise especially in the bullpen, the Cubs are still hanging on to average at 8th place overall. Neither pitching staff in 07 or 08 was supposed to be one of the best in the league. I would argue they most likely overachieved both years (although more in 07 than in 08, but that's just because 08's pitching staff had more expectations on it). I don't see where Rothschild wouldn't get a decent amount of leash. His recent track record points to him getting a little bit of time, and the Cubs pitching seems to have been coming together the last 2-3 weeks.

and that is fine... so have him starting at 3rd in the minors. The thing with Fox is that he's very unlikely to be a long term solution anywhere - except as a bat off the bench (or a DH if we deal him to an AL team). So, I think the idea was to call him up and take advantage of his hot bat in pinch hit situations. You're not stunting his growth, because he's not really an answer long term anywhere. And he's not a long term answer anywhere because of his defense. Exactly. If the Cubs thought he could handle 3B consistently after a little practice, they would probably have him down in AAA working on it everyday. It seems pretty obvious from their quotes and the fact that he's in the majors that they don't think he could ever be even a fill in starter there. He's a guy who may get a start or two there in very favorable matchups but is mostly going to be playing some innings there out of desperation like what happened the other night. They called him up for his bat off the bench and nothing else. His best chance to get a couple of starts is if one of the corner OF's needs a break against a left-handed starter.

A backup catcher who the Mets were desperately trying to trade before having to release him and pay him his entire salary in the next week. Broadway never has been able to figure it out in either AAA or the majors. A couple of mediocre years in AAA can really ruin a career.

Exactly. They needed a strong bench precisely because of the state of their roster, but instead they decided to go with players who would be somewhat valuable in the playoffs when you have giant benches but are terrible players to compose a 5 man bench. I definitely agree with the farm comment. They may not start hitting the majors until 2011, but the Cubs have lots of interesting guys that are coming. The state of the farm system is much improved over 1 year ago. There aren't really many at all can't miss guys down there (as much as that exists with prospects) but there's a large quantity of good prospects that make it pretty likely that a few of them will pan out. 2010 will likely be about the same roster as 2009 (the Cubs have decisions to make on Harden and Gregg, but everyone else returns) and then hopefully when 2011 hits a minor leaguer or two can be mixed in to provide some cheap production and the Cubs can fill their other holes with the large amount of money that is likely coming available that season.

This isnt taunting, just asking. Did Notre Dame make a bowl game? I know when MSU doesnt make one it makes the offseason seem like 9 months :) Yeah, they blew out Hawaii in their very minor bowl game.

gregg has gotten boned over on a bunch of those this year, frankly. one of the balls to ethier looked good too. I feel like the zone for Gregg has been really tight this year as well. His entire gameplan is to throw pitches at the knees or higher on the outside corner, and the umps are not really giving him much either way. That combined with the fact that he doesn't have a great "out" pitch is why he has so many walks. His control isn't terrible (it's a little below average)..but hitters have been fouling off the strikes, taking the close pitches for balls and then taking walks.

That's a tough one. All 3 of those guys have hit a lot better this week (Lee for much longer than that). Fontenot has looked fine at the plate today just like he has the last few days. Two sharply hit ground balls, a sharp line drive, and a dribbler.

I think they sent Furcal back to first because the pitch got away due to it hitting Pierre. I'd have to double check the rule on that one, but I don't think a batter can advance in a situation like that. Correct, once it hits the batter its a dead ball. Runners can't advance Thanks everyone. Forgot that particular rule in that mess of an inning.

Pierre stepped out of the batter's box and offered at a pitch low and in, which ended up hitting him. The ump correctly called it a strike. Meanwhile, Pierre was safe on that one. I'm still confused on why they sent Furcal back to first. If Pierre swung and the ball got away, that should still be a wild pitch. So they either called a foul ball (which it wasn't, but that's what Gameday has it as) or some kind of batter's interference? I know his foot was outside the box but I don't think they called him for that. And you're correct, Pierre was also safe at first. That was potentially 2 breaks for the Cubs this inning.

Not too often you see 3 close calls on the same pitch. That was close to a called strike, a close play on the stolen base, and the check swing looked close as well.

all of our guys? who's sitting...soto and bradley? it's pretty reasonable to give your catcher a game off on a day game after night game. everybody has been wanting to get Hoff more at bats, and Bradley probably needs to be handled carefully. i don't see the big problem. edit: and Theriot. i knew i was forgetting someone. Why not let hoff play today at first since we got a tough righty on the mound and we have to be more lefthanded this year when possible? I would have been fine with that as well. But the team is not being careful with Lee like they are with Bradley. And Bradley is needed the next couple of days against the left-handers. Yeah, i thought about that, but Lee has been hot and hit Billingsley well last year. I don't know Bradley's history against Billingsley. In the regular season, Lee is 1 for 6 with a HR, 1 BB, 1 K against Billingsley. In the playoffs he was 1 for 3 with a K. So .222/.300/.556 overall. Bradley has never faced him as far as I can tell.