CubColtPacer

Just watching the boxing. At the end of a third round here, the guy in red moves in on the guy in blue. The guy in blue tries to turn and simply held up his hands to protect himself while the guy in red got a blow or two in. No punches were thrown by the guy in blue. A point was added for the guy in blue right before the end of the round.

What's weird?

It's a combination of 2 things. 1) The Cubs lead the overall series. It's much harder to ignore a team when they've beaten you more than you have them. 2) The biggest reason the Cubs lead the overall series is that the rivalry had been going strong for 60 years before the Cubs really started to slip as a team. The rivalry by then is not likely to be dropped because children learn the rivalry from their fathers and continue to carry it on.

True, but even the second guessing doesn't really hold together as a reasonable thing for the Cubs to have done: For the Cubs to have a successful Hamilton..they would have to do all of the above: draft Hamilton and plan to keep him on the roster despite Hamilton having 50 AB's in the minors in the past 4 years combined not sign Cliff Floyd (Floyd was the only backup OF to start the 2007 season). Get enough PT (which was possible once Soriano got hurt that year and moved back to LF-but that's definitely hindsight and wasn't really that reasonable before the 2007 season started). That doesn't even get into the fact that the Reds had connections to Hamilton's past which helped him to stay clean and for them to feel better about taking a risk on him, or that even with a little PT and success there would be no guarantee that Hamilton wouldn't have been pushed out of the lineup because of his first slump. I doubt this would have even been an issue if say the Dodgers had been the one to trade the Reds the pick. But since Hamilton was Cubs property for a very, very short time, many people like to blame the Cubs for not seeing Hamilton's talent. Really though, any team in the league could have had Hamilton very easily if they wanted him. The Reds were the one to take the risk, and this time, it worked out. That doesn't mean the Cubs (or the other teams who passed on Hamilton) did anything wrong.

I have no problem with Randy Winn as a bench bat this year. He's a somewhat versatile decent player, and the Cubs could use another one of those in the playoffs. The problem is next year. He's due to make 8.25 million. I don't think the upgrade this year is worth the salary next year.

I think Wood will be re-signed because of his loyalty to the Cubs. Exactly... plus would is no where near K Rod... Wood will probably get 4-5 Mil only. Wood is making 4.2 million this year. That's after he only pitched 2 months last year because of arm injuries, and was pretty effective but not great when he returned. This year, all his numbers have gotten better. In addition to that, he's now a "closer" with 24 saves already which inflates his value. His only injury was not arm related, but was a blister. There's absolutely no way that he signs for so little. He'll easily get double that per year over a potential multi-year deal if not more. That's with incentives though, right? No. 4.2 million was his base salary that he got regardless. He then had incentives piled on top of that which could have made it closer to 8 million this year.

I think Wood will be re-signed because of his loyalty to the Cubs. Exactly... plus would is no where near K Rod... Wood will probably get 4-5 Mil only. Wood is making 4.2 million this year. That's after he only pitched 2 months last year because of arm injuries, and was pretty effective but not great when he returned. This year, all his numbers have gotten better. In addition to that, he's now a "closer" with 24 saves already which inflates his value. His only injury was not arm related, but was a blister. There's absolutely no way that he signs for so little. He'll easily get double that per year over a potential multi-year deal if not more.

I didn't think we'd get an answer to this question, but here it is: Valdosta, Georgia http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080807&content_id=3270063&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc A couple good quotes from Eyre in there. Good luck to him, except when we possibly meet his team in the playoffs.

The Cubs can probably not be concerned with the Cardinals any longer if they sweep them. But the Cardinals season won't be over regardless of what happens this weekend. I doubt they'll sweep them anyway, but it sure would be nice.

Thanks Bruce. Something I hadn't heard yet was that groundball/flyball ratio. Anybody who can get that many ground balls and that many strikeouts definitely has potential. Just a manner of refining the mechanics and hopefully getting those walks a little bit down.

when you're on a WS contending team, the goal is to have everyone on the 25 man roster above average. Is that really ridiculous to you? The thing is come October Jason either A. wont' be on the WS contending team's roster, or B. will fill the role of 11th pitcher, in which case he'd be above average. C) won't be on the playoff roster at all Which is A on his list.

Hmm..I put a post in, realized that it somehow double posted it, so I deleted one copy and it deleted both. Basically, I was agreeing with jersey on the idea that the article is absolutely wrong if is says that the win totals for Marquis do not reflect how well he's pitched. He should be right around a .500 record with how he's pitched, and while the team hasn't given him a lot of run support lately, they have given him plenty of run support when looking at the full season.

Are people opposed to calling up Castillo because it will start his clock or something? I guess I can understand that, he could probably use another year in the minors anyway. How old is Welington? Castillo is 21. And yes, that's why I would be opposed to him coming up. The 3rd catcher really isn't going to be used unless for an emergency, and I'm pretty sure Castillo is not on the list that needs to be put on the 40 man this year. He would then have to use a major league option to send him down next year after Spring Training. I would rather save that option and put him on the 40 next year if he's still doing well.

that's not true. Yeah, he also mashes bad breaking balls. I was writing with assumption that any hitter playing everyday in the big leagues can mash a hanging breaking ball for an extra base hit. That's a given. The only pitcher's pitch (meaning non-mistake pitch) Soriano can really do damage on is a fastball. When Soriano's on though, breaking balls that normal hitters can't do anything with he can hit out of the ballpark. If he's hitting well, you better get the breaking ball in the dirt. If you leave it ankle high (which is normally a pretty decent pitch still to a normal hitter, especially to a right handed hitter) Soriano has a decent shot to golf it right out of the park.

Marmol wasn't a good starter at all because he doesn't have a good third pitch. That's why he was converted into a reliever. You can be a dominant reliever with two good pitches, as Marmol proves. marmol was a good starter in the minors that time has likely passed, obviously, but the reason marmol wasn't a success as a starter in the majors go way beyond the lack of a third pitch No, not really. He struggled as a starter as a rookie, that doesn't mean he would never have become a good starter. His change is passable, his control/pitch count would have needed work. You may be right (I'd call his change up as mediocre at best, and that's maybe a little generous), but the perception of not having three major league pitches in the front office most certainly was the deciding factor in him converting into a reliever when he went down after those initial struggles. Had he had a better change than what he does, I think his chances of sticking as a starter three years ago would have been considerably higher. His conversion into a reliever was because the Cubs needed an extra bullpen arm in the middle of the year last year, and Marmol was the best choice (at the time he was doing well as a starter at Iowa). So that's why he was the one called up, and he ended up being so dominant as a reliever that the Cubs decided to keep him there rather than risk switching him back. The perception of 2 pitches might have factored into them keeping him as a reliever (although I think his dominance was a much bigger factor), but his conversion into a reliever was strictly need based.

The 9 spot the Cubs put up against Contreras and company in the 4th a month or two back was a lot of fun also. It's hard to say which one was better.

Probably 2004 sometime. Didn't an ESPN announcer say that the other day was the first time they had been 21 games over (or whatever it was at the time) since 1969? That stat was the last time the Cubs have been 22? games over on this date of the season since 1969. Other teams since then have been that many games over at other parts of the season.

Hopefully it's nothing serious for Gallagher. It's always sad when a young pitcher like him goes down with an injury, especially such a nice one like him. I'm sure it must have been scary to hear that pop with all the stories he's probably heard of a pop being the beginning of the end, and I certainly hope that nothing could be further from the truth here and he can still have a long career.

Does that include CSN+? There are 2 games on CSN+, 2 games on WICU, and 1 game that is currently scheduled to not be on TV at all in September. That game is likely a TBD. It's definitely going to be on TV. Yeah, it was. It just got a firm start time, so I'm guessing they'll decide on the TV soon. They will televise a Cubs-Cardinals game in September. The White Sox are on CSN that day (it's a Sunday) so I'm hoping it's one of those September games that WGN picks up (they usually have picked up 1-2 extra when the Cubs are in contention).

Normally I can at least be somewhat optimistic for Marquis. But the Astros are just an absolutely horrible matchup for him. I'm just hoping he can avoid the disaster start, because those middle of the order hitters (especially Berkman) have just demolished him over the course of his career. On the other hand, the Cubs have not been stellar against Backe overall, although most of that is due to a low batting average caused by a low BABIP. So hopefully they can have a few more fall in today.

Does that include CSN+? There are 2 games on CSN+, 2 games on WICU, and 1 game that is currently scheduled to not be on TV at all in September.

Dr. Andrews has done stories and interviews before. I've read at least one of them. For example, this is a very long article all about Andrews, with plenty of quotes and a few stories spread in there: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3024046

Shocking! That was expected, and there probably were at least 10 Cubs that cleared trade waivers. That doesn't mean they'd clear release waivers.

Theriot is actually a big DP candidate because of hit tendency to hit ground balls. He hits into a DP a greater percentage of his available opportunities than any other Cub. Higher than DLee? As careless said, yes. I still wouldn't have had Theriot bunt there though, especially not with Harden on 2nd. You have a decent shot of Harden being thrown out at 3rd or being doubled off on a bad bunt. And then when Theriot got ahead on the count, there's no way I bunt at that point.

Theriot is actually a big DP candidate because of hit tendency to hit ground balls. He hits into a DP a greater percentage of his available opportunities than any other Cub.