CubColtPacer

Nobody is quite sure-he is feeling tenderness in his arm and doesn't really want to pitch right now, so they have put him on the DL. The move has been made now btw-Guzman to DL, retroactive to June 2nd, Gallagher up, and Novoa placed on the 60 day DL with a right humeral head fracture. http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20070606&content_id=2008847&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

it coming anytime soon southpaw? Would love to see an update :D

No manager is going to pinch hit for his starting SS in the 4th inning, regardless of the situation. Earl Weaver pinch hit for Mark Belanger in the first once, IIRC. At any rate, how about the 6th inning down by three with a runner on second? Mind you, DeRosa is on the bench, and Theriot can move over to SS. For that matter, why is Izzy even in the freaking lineup? Lou likes to give people (especially his middle infielders) days off. DeRosa had started 12 games in a row prior to that-if they had pinch-hit him in the 4th inning, that would have defeated the purpose of trying to give him a day off.

The way Pie swung his bat around at the last moment, I think he was trying to bunt for a hit. he squared pretty early Yeah, I just looked at it again. It wasn't way early, but it was early enough.

The way Pie swung his bat around at the last moment, I think he was trying to bunt for a hit.

The only way this *might* include Jones in a trade would be if a pitcher on the current roster is also included. Otherwise, just replacing Jones' spot on the roster means the Cubs would have 13 pitchers and only 12 position players.....I don't think so! Arent we at 11 pitchers right now? Eyre Howry Demp Guz Marmol Ohman and 5 starters You forgot Wuertz.

Taking a quick look at the options: I doubt it's Hill or Lilly Z could be DL'd or traded Marquis could be DL'd-haven't heard anything on him, but he wasn't particularly sharp last night, so who knows Marshall could be sent down-but this seems unlikely with the way he's pitched. Bullpen (the more likely option for Gallagher) Dempster, Wuertz, and Howry are safe Ohman-possibly sent down Guzman-not likely to be sent down Eyre-possible release Marmol-if somebody is sent to the minors, Marmol is the most likely candidate. If I had to rank them in terms of likelihood: 1. Eyre release 2. Z DL'd 3. Marquis DL'd 4. Marmol sent down 5. some sort of trade

I'm not sure why. He practically was begging the Cubs for a job in Februrary, and he wasn't signed by them then-if they weren't going to sign him then, it would be very unlikely for them to do it now with Pie supposed to stay up with the major league club for good.

I'd bet Scottie Pippen had the same issue when he came out. He'll get stronger. I also heard Chad Ford this morning, and he said that while many people train for these specific drills, Durant hasn't done any training on those drills because it didn't really matter how he performed on them. He said that it was quite possible that Durant had never even tried to bench with a bar (as opposed to a machine) and that basketball players don't do much weight training by rule. Basically, he blamed it on his agent for not recommending that Durant train for these things-even though they really have no impact on what he can do on a basketball court, but the perception that these drills are important should have had the agent concerned.

2nd rate among first baseman. Ranking anywhere from 20-9 among qualified 1B in OPS. 200 OPS points off the leaders. That is 2nd rate. You're far too generous if you think that's an elite 1B. Defense matters to bud! defense at 1b doesn't matter that much. bud. Ha ok how so? if it's that important, why is it the place to put fat, unathletic guys who don't have another position? it's clearly the easiest defensive position to play. First base is definitely the easiest position to play at an average level. Anybody can be stuck there, take throws, and not be terrible there, which is why several would be DH's end up playing at first. However, Lee adds a lot of value defensively over a guy who is just average there. From being one of the best at picking balls out of the dirt, the long stretch that helps the ball get there slightly faster for close plays at first, and the ability to stop balls on either side of him from getting through, especially potential doubles down the line adds up to a pretty good addition of value. So the difference between an average first baseman and a replacement level first baseman defensively is probably the smallest of any of the positions (and therefore just about anybody can play there), but the difference between elite and average can be quite a bit.

I wouldn't mind the move for those 2 reasons, but it does create a situation on the major league club where there is again no center fielder that can play against LHP. I don't think that's a big issue. Our 3 best hitters are RH, plus Barrett and DeRosa have significant R/L splits. Having Pie learn to hit LHP isn't that big a deal, he's going to have to do it sometime. Yes, and even with many players like that the team struggled against LHP last year, and this year are only averaging 3.14 runs per game when a left-hander goes to the mound. To put Pie out there, who is probably a little worse than Jones right now against LHP, would just make it more likely that the Cubs struggles against left-handers would continue.

I wouldn't mind the move for those 2 reasons, but it does create a situation on the major league club where there is again no center fielder that can play against LHP.

Speaking of the Mets, if the Cubs were to trade Zambrano to the Mets by the trading deadline, what would be considered a fair deal? Milledge, Pelfrey and Heilman. The Mets could have had Zito for Milledge last year, and didn't do it. I doubt they'd do that deal for Z, especially with him struggling this much.

I have to say that I'm pretty shocked that Felix Heredia didn't even make the list. He tortured us for at least a couple of seasons.

How does Theriot not get the appropriate amount of playing time? He's tied for 5th in the team in at-bats despite being (position players with at least 20 at-bats): 9th in OBP 12th in SLG I don't mind him starting the majority of days now, because he is a little better than Izturis. I don't exactly see how he's not getting the playing time he deserves though-in a few days, Theriot will likely only be behind Soriano, Lee, and Ramirez in at-bats despite not being a good offensive player.

You win. Soriano's spot in the order is not the problem, or even a problem at all. And moving him in the order to put Pie of all people in the leadoff spot would be an awful decision. No one (at least not me) is saying Soriano's spot in the order is a problem. It's just that we have another player (Theriot) that most likely can get on base as much as Soriano. It's a waste of resources to have a guy with his power potential batting leadoff. He doesn't hit as well when not hitting leadoff. that's just [expletive]. the only time he's guaranteed to leadoff an inning is in the 1st. makes absolutely no sense to me why he couldn't produce from another spot unless it's just his selfishness getting in the way of him playing well because he's pouting about not being the "leadoff guy" That's still quite a bit of difference even with only one guaranteed at-bat. Also, the most likely hitter to bat first in an inning later in the game is the number 1 hitter, because the pitcher is the most likely person to make an out (and therefore the most likely person to make a 3rd out of an inning). 2003: 64% of Soriano's at-bats were with no one on base 2004-58.8% 2005-54.8% 2006-67.2% 2007-68.3% The two years he wasn't in the leadoff spot he saw a pretty big dropoff in those runners on base. When he went to the NL and leading off, those numbers went back up and even further. Here are his career numbers with the bases empty versus having runners on: bases empty-.288/.330/.529 runners on-.268/.321/.474 RISP-.254/.320/.444 Soriano hits better out of the leadoff spot, and better when there is nobody on base. The best way to maximize his production is to keep him there at leadoff.

Since this applies to a possible Kobe trade (which has been discussed at length in this thread) I'm going to put this here. It looks like the Lakers are going to try to build around Kobe instead of trading him. I've heard several sources saying that the Lakers are coming after Jermaine O'Neal-the deal would shake out something like Odom, Bynum, and the #19 for O'Neal and Tinsley (although I've heard several variations on the deal). If that happens, then any Kobe deal would be basically off. Edit: Ok, now it just sounds like an O'Neal for Odom and Bynum+filler deal

I have no problem with seeing Murton play more. I do think it is interesting that everyone always says that Murton's numbers may be down because he hardly plays, but never mentions that Floyd's numbers may also be down for the same reason when Murton has played more than Floyd has. I think both of them have a reason for that to be the case (Murton pressing for playing time, and Floyd has never had this many at-bats taken away from him). At this point in time, Floyd has been more successful at being a part-time player than Murton has, but neither has been good (.754 OPS for Floyd, .698 for Murton). Right now, I don't really mind who plays, but if the team continues to spiral, Murton should start getting more at-bats because he is at least a possibility for the future.

He's on pace for 400 AB, so it wouldn't take much to get up to 450 PA. As you said, if there's an injury to Murton, Jones or Soriano, or if Lou suddenly decides he needs Floyd hitting 4th everyday, then it becomes a scary issue. How is he on pace for 400 AB's? He has 104 AB's through 51 games-that's a pace of 330.4 AB's on the season, and he's on pace for just over 362 PA's on the season. He'd have to start playing just about everyday for the rest of the season in order to reach the 450 mark at this point.

The cap makes the rule unnecessary. If you already have a cap, the rule is just a pointless addition to make it more difficult to improve your team. A hard cap would make the rule unnecessary. The NBA uses a soft cap. Did you read CubColtPacer's post? Yes, I just don't see how it's true. Obviously it hasn't kept good teams from being dominant, as the same teams keep winning. Not allowing teams to trade actually pretty much guarantees that bad teams will stay bad and great teams will stay great. But I guess this is the closest anybody has come to supplying a reason for the rule. It's not like the NBA is the only league with foolish rules. It just seems to me that most leagues have these rules set up for a legit reason to benefit either the teams or the players. If you have a salary cap and then tax every dollar spent above that cap, then why can't they just tax the added dollars that come via a trade? It's not like teams are just going to be giving away Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson type players to the dominant teams and not take market value back. It appears to me to be an unnecessary barrier to trade. A man-made inefficiency that doesn't help anybody. A lawyerly creation designed to look smart but in practice and in reality, without purpose. The NBA is still a team dominated by the teams that win in the draft. It takes teams forever to get any good. More ability to trade would allow the better GMs to go from have nots to haves in a more timely fashion. The current system just seems to doom the bad teams to poisoning their home market. The NBA has just as much fluctuation from bad to good as any other league. You have your 5-6 teams at the top (where 1 team breaks in about every year) your 16-18 teams in the middle, and then your 6-8 teams at the bottom with terrible management. Here are the teams in the NBA who have won at least 50 games in the past 5 years (good teams): Detroit, Cleveland, Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, Houston, Utah, Miami, Seattle, Sacramento, Indiana, Minnesota, LA Lakers, Memphis, Portland. That's half the league right there-and that doesn't include the Nets (who were in the NBA Finals during that stretch), the 76ers (who were in the finals in the 2000-2001 season and were good as recently as 4 years ago), the Bulls (who won 49 games this year after being bad 5 years ago), the Wizards (who were a tough out in the playoffs last year), the Bucks (who won 51 games 6 years ago and were in the playoffs 3 out of the past 5 years), Denver (who has been in the hunt for several years including winning 49 games one year), and several other examples. It's not harder to go from bad to good or good to bad in the NBA-the only thing that makes winning championships harder than other sports is the best of 7 rule. In other sports, the best team doesn't win most of the time, but in pro basketball it does, and that's why you'll see less champions overall. There have been plenty of very good teams though.

The only thing I can see is this: we don't know where this team would be with a good bullpen. A good BP might not be that hard to acquire. We've lost probably 10 games due to bullpen collapses this year. If 7 of those are wins, then we're 2 over and probably not in such an ugly mood. Remember that you have to subtract the losses away from the total as well in that scenario. If we had won 7 of the 10 games that the bullpen was terrible in (your scenario), the team would be 8 over right now and leading the division by 1 game.

Those are the only pitchers I have, but my league has a strict start limit (120 starts for the whole season) and I'm at 42 through 2 months, which is on pace, and I've basically had 4 pitchers that entire time (I picked Sheets up in late April, and Halladay went down a couple of weeks later). There also are a few decent pitchers on the FA wire that I can pick up to start against certain matchups to get to 120 if one of my starters gets hurt.

I have a guy in my league who is very interested in my starting pitching. I have 5 starters-Roy Halladay, Rich Hill, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Cole Hamels, and Ben Sheets. I looked at his team, and the only guy that I could really use is Prince Fielder (he has Pujols playing 1B, so Fielder is in his utility slot-I have Adrian Gonzalez, and 1 of them would be in my utility slot). He still hasn't picked which pitcher he wants. So 1) Rank my pitchers please 2) Which ones would you give up for Fielder?

Bonds had 136 starts in the 3 spot in 2001-Kent had 12. Kent had 141 starts in the 4 spot-Bonds had 11. Yeah, I actually edited my post to correct myself before you responded. There was a year where they did that, though. Maybe it was '02. Yeah, they flipped the order around the middle of 02 to have Kent bat in front of Bonds, and Bonds ended up having 1 of Reggie Sanders, J.T. Snow, or Benito Santiago behind him.

Bonds had 136 starts in the 3 spot in 2001-Kent had 12. Kent had 141 starts in the 4 spot-Bonds had 11.