CubColtPacer

Ouch. Cherry really got drilled. Here is his final line: 1/3 IP, 3 H, 4 R, 4 ER, 1 BB, 0 K, 1 HR

Colvin has put up a nice second half. Hopefully he can replicate that when he probably starts at Tenn next year. That strikeout to walk ratio is still absolutely horrid-hopefully he'll work on that next year. I wouldn't mind seeing him getting promoted to Iowa early next year in order to work with von Joshua on his patience. 165 AB's, 6 2B, 2 2B, 7 HR, 31 K/4 BB, .315/.337/.503.

Pujols just kills everybody. The Cubs have actually been one of the better teams at stopping him. They have the best results in the NL Central against him, and are 3rd best in the NL against him. I agree with most of the rest of your list. I'd have to go with Edmonds, especially after that confrontation with Z a couple of years ago.

Santana is a pretty bad comparison for this. He was in the bullpen originally so he could hide in the majors after being picked in the Rule V draft. There really wasn't any question that his future was in the rotation. Previous to this year there was no question that Marmol's future was in the rotation... People tend to overemphasize bullpen "roles". If you're asking me whether we should have Marmol throw 90 innings a season or 200, I gotta go with 200. That being said, wanting him to throw 200 innings and him actually doing it are two very different things. But if he comes out of this season with his arm intact, he should be given a chance if we see an injury derail one of our other starters. That's not true at all. People on here were calling for Marmol to eventually be moved to the bullpen. The Cubs organization during the winter said that Marmol was their future closer. There was significant question both last year and in the offseason about which way Marmol's future would go.

Marmol went 2 innings yesterday. I don't believe we will see him today. That was 2 days ago.

I hope Encarnacion recovers well and quickly. That's a scary injury, and I sincerely hope there's no permanent damage.

Welcome to the board! Soriano last did that on June 7th and 8th, so it has been a little while.

Soriano Theriot Lee Ramirez Monroe DeRosa Kendall Jones Marquis Houston lines up like this: Pence Burke Berkman Lee Loretta Scott Wiggington Ausmus Patton

turns out that they did the right thing with DuBois No they didn't. How many times does this have to be gone over? Dubois didn't have to set the world on fire, all he had to do was play better than Todd Hollandsworth. The problem is that we don't know what would have happend becuase Dusty contiuned to trott out a crappy Hollandsworth. It's probably not just the Cubs, its all the MLB. In the NFL you don't see crappy vets given playing time over cheaper and probably just as productive younger players. Kendall is playing well but it's not a good bet that he will put up better numbers than Soto next year or the following. My prediciton if Hendry is still GM, Kendall 2 years @ 4mll/year. Dubois was terrible, he was terrible for the Cubs and for everybody else at the major league level. There just might be a reason he hasn't played in the major leagues since 2005, and it has nothing to do with the CUbs, Hendry, or Dusty. He wished he could have Hollandsworth's career. The Cubs did exactly the right thing by not playing him. It's not about a "career". It's about production, cost, and the future. Hollandswroth/Kendall are/were at the end of their carrer and not likely to get better and much likely to get worse. Nobody knows what the future holds for Soto and at the time for DuBois. But again, all of that is beside the point, somewhat. Hollandsworth was terrible in 2004, DuBois just had to be slightly better than terrible. But he got the Murton treatement (or has Murton got the DuBois treatment?) so we don't know what he would have done given a little consistent playing time. May you be talking about 2005 instead of 2004? Hollandsworth was not terrible in 2004-far from it. He put up a .318/.392/.547 line. In fact, Hollandsworth's 2004 was probably the reason he was taking time away from Dubois in 2005. Going into 2005, Hollandsworth's previous 6 years of OPS+ were: 103, 91, 150, 97, 96, 134. So mostly close to average with 2 very good years mixed in. Yes, he collapsed in 2005, but there was nothing in his history that would suggest that kept in a platoon that he wouldn't be around average or better in 2005.

If that's what he's used for...I'll cope. I still would prefer Gallagher to start vs Stl then Trachsel Gallagher has been hit hard in the majors this year. A 7.82 ERA and a 2.05 WHIP. Now, for a year, I would be furious if they selected Trachsel over Gallagher. Gallagher is going to make adjustments and end up being better than Trachsel. Only 1 start though? I think Trachsel is the better option right now, especially since Trachsel has good numbers against the St. Louis lineup. Now, like I've said before, that still wouldn't be justification for trading for him (they definitely overpaid), but I think Trachsel is an upgrade for that one game. CCP, you are alot better with getting numbers than I am, so Im going to ask you. I think most of that ERA is from the blowout in CO? Other than that I remember 1 hr given up, and then pretty good performances, am I wrong? Gallagher had 7 outings 3.1 IP, 2 ER 0.1 IP, 0 ER 2.0 IP, 4 ER 1.1 IP, 1 ER 4 IP, 1 ER 1.0 IP, 0 ER 0.2 IP, 4 ER Gallagher struggled the whole way through. He had 1 good outing (the 4 IP, 1 ER). The 1.0 IP he gave up a hit and a walk, but that's still a pretty good outing. Gallagher's problems were the walks. He walked 12 in 12 2/3 IP. The only outing he didn't walk anybody in was the 1/3 of an inning outing.

If that's what he's used for...I'll cope. I still would prefer Gallagher to start vs Stl then Trachsel Gallagher has been hit hard in the majors this year. A 7.82 ERA and a 2.05 WHIP. Now, for a year, I would be furious if they selected Trachsel over Gallagher. Gallagher is going to make adjustments and end up being better than Trachsel. Only 1 start though? I think Trachsel is the better option right now, especially since Trachsel has good numbers against the St. Louis lineup. Now, like I've said before, that still wouldn't be justification for trading for him (they definitely overpaid), but I think Trachsel is an upgrade for that one game.

So you want Dempster going 2 innings last night in a tie game and Marmol coming in to face the 9-1-2 hitters with a 2 run lead? I'd want my best relief pitcher pitching the ninth (and eight inning if necessary). Marmol has a 1.47 ERA and threw 22 strikes out of 29 pitches last night. Dempster has a 3.29 ERA and only threw 9 strikes out of 21 pitches. He doesn't have the control or strike out enough guys to be a good closer. A so-called closer walking a guy with the bases loaded - that's ridiculous. I don't care how many cheap saves he gets. That ground ball goes a few more feet to ARam's left and the Brewers win the game. I think you're just defending him because you like his first name. You'd be wasting his value. Your best reliever should pitch in the tighest of spots. That is mostly in the 6th, 7th, or 8th, when the starting pitcher or middle reliever gets in trouble and you need to get through the heart of the order. The closer starts almost all his innings with nobody on, so you can afford to give up a runner. When a guy comes in during the 8th with men on and nobody out, you need your stud reliever. If Marshall goes eight innings today and runs out of gas with the Cubs up by one, Lou better use Marmol instead of Dempster. I hope not. Marmol shouldn't pitch today after pitching 2 innings yesterday. And yes, that is the one situation where the closer being the most dominant pitcher is a good thing. How many times does a starter go 8 full innings anymore though? Not very often. Number of innings is irrelevant. Marmol threw eight more pitcher than Dempster. A team can be up one or two runs in the ninth without a starter pitching eight innings. True, but if the starter doesn't pitch 8 innings Marmol could pitch the 7th or 8th, which is just as important as the 9th. Also, having to warm that arm back up for a second inning does add stress to the outing, at least to me.

I'm not sure there is any mortgaging the future here. The worst part is the loss of Moore's trade value, but neither Moore or Cherry had much future with the team whatsoever. Here's another thought-is Hendry just trying to clear 40 man space now? That's my assumption. But why? There's been talk about Kevin Hart being called up when the rosters expand. I'm guessing this opens up a spot on the 40-man for him. There was already a spot on the 40 man for him (the one Rapada opened up yesterday (Coats was the spot that went to Monroe)). I do find it strange that the Cubs have taken off Dopirak, Coats, Rapada, Cherry, and Moore now, and have replaced them mostly with people whose contracts expire at the end of the year. There will be plenty of spots now on the 40 man come November. I do agree that these two should have been traded for at least like a middle IF prospect that could be used as the backup MIF next year at the mininum. This is just a waste of their value.

I'm not sure there is any mortgaging the future here. The worst part is the loss of Moore's trade value, but neither Moore or Cherry had much future with the team whatsoever. Here's another thought-is Hendry just trying to clear 40 man space now?

Basically for that one spot start against St. Louis during the DH in a couple weeks, at least that's the assumption.

For the CUBS this year...... 12 times in 132 games. (9.09%) Thans Fred. So less than 10 percent of the time. And from glancing over the game logs, there were only 7 save situations out of those 12, and 3 of those were 3 run leads. So that situation just doesn't happen all that often, and from just a glace it looks like Dempster hasn't blown a single save in that type of situation.

Uh-sorry, can't defend this move. If it was just Cherry, I wouldn't care. I don't think Moore's value is all that high, but it's higher than this.

So you want Dempster going 2 innings last night in a tie game and Marmol coming in to face the 9-1-2 hitters with a 2 run lead? I'd want my best relief pitcher pitching the ninth (and eight inning if necessary). Marmol has a 1.47 ERA and threw 22 strikes out of 29 pitches last night. Dempster has a 3.29 ERA and only threw 9 strikes out of 21 pitches. He doesn't have the control or strike out enough guys to be a good closer. A so-called closer walking a guy with the bases loaded - that's ridiculous. I don't care how many cheap saves he gets. That ground ball goes a few more feet to ARam's left and the Brewers win the game. I think you're just defending him because you like his first name. You'd be wasting his value. Your best reliever should pitch in the tighest of spots. That is mostly in the 6th, 7th, or 8th, when the starting pitcher or middle reliever gets in trouble and you need to get through the heart of the order. The closer starts almost all his innings with nobody on, so you can afford to give up a runner. When a guy comes in during the 8th with men on and nobody out, you need your stud reliever. If Marshall goes eight innings today and runs out of gas with the Cubs up by one, Lou better use Marmol instead of Dempster. I hope not. Marmol shouldn't pitch today after pitching 2 innings yesterday. And yes, that is the one situation where the closer being the most dominant pitcher is a good thing. How many times does a starter go 8 full innings anymore though? Not very often.

A friend and I did the Big 10-SEC debate a few months ago. I'm an ND fan who has spent more time around the Big 10 than any other conference, and he is an SEC fan his whole life. We ranked both conferences and took 11 teams from each (for the SEC we knocked out I think the 7th ranked team, as close to the middle as we could get). We then compared accomplishments-who has been the better team over that time? When we finished hashing it out, we found it was a complete push. The SEC had a little better 3rd-5th teams over that time period, and the Big 10 was better in the 7-10 range. The other matchups were pushes. The results certainly surprised my friend (who ended up agreeing with the results). The SEC might be better this year, but I think it's too early to tell. It probably won't be known until after the bowl games.

107 pitches isn't that high though. Especially for a left-handed veteran like Lilly, that doesn't put much stress on his arm. You're talking about a few weeks ago? One 120+ pitch outing for a guy like Lilly is not going to take much of a toll. It's concerning if they pitch him 115+ regularly, but Lou doesn't do that.

Or maybe he should wear them... Anyway, I specifically went back through this thread to make sure that someone made this joke. I feel much better now that I know someone did. How did they give Monroe a double there? I know they don't give errors when guys lose the ball in the sun and it falls to the ground. But that actually hit his glove, that's got to be an error. It hit his glove when he raised it to protect his head because he had no idea where the ball was. If you don't call an error when the guy lets a popup fall 3 feet from him, I don't think you can call an error there either. Hart had absolutely no idea where it was. He knew where it was, he tracked it until the last second. The glove was up before he lost it, unless you really think he just magically threw up his glove and the ball found it. If Murton pulls that he'd get ripped to shreds. That's an error. If that game is played in Milwaukee they aren't giving the hitter a gift double. Of course if Murton did it he would get ripped to shreds, just like when Jacque lost those 2-3 balls in the lights he got ripped to shreds. That doesn't mean it is automatically scored as an error (as much as I think it should-I think all those balls that are lost in the lights and which drop a few feet away from fielder should be errors, but that's not how they are scored) I don't think we're going to agree on this. You think he saw the ball and that he just missed the catch. I think he saw the ball off of the bat and ran to where the ball would likely go, and then lost it and put his glove up in self-defense because he had no idea where it was. If it was a try at a catch, it certainly wasn't a very good one.

Marmol has some outings where his control simply isn't there. As a reliever, you can get a couple outs out of him and pull him. As a starter, he'd be prone to the big inning sometime during the outing. Plus, his fastball has extra velocity as a reliever, which turns it from a good pitch into a dominant pitch. He doesn't really have a good third pitch that he can throw. Marmol simply can be a much better reliever than starter. He possibly could grow into an average to slightly above average starter, but then what's more important-a great reliever or an average starter?

Or maybe he should wear them... Anyway, I specifically went back through this thread to make sure that someone made this joke. I feel much better now that I know someone did. How did they give Monroe a double there? I know they don't give errors when guys lose the ball in the sun and it falls to the ground. But that actually hit his glove, that's got to be an error. It hit his glove when he raised it to protect his head because he had no idea where the ball was. If you don't call an error when the guy lets a popup fall 3 feet from him, I don't think you can call an error there either. Hart had absolutely no idea where it was.

Even before this year, the Cubs organization said that he would be a future closer. They used him in a starting role at Iowa because there were starting spots available, but he is staying in the bullpen.

The Cubs cannot keep Soto in the minors. He is out of options, so he will either be traded or in the majors.