CubColtPacer

Uh-like Detroit last year, who was also 44-9 and did not win the title? Link. Ok-that is true because he qualified it with All-Star Break. Detroit was only 42-9 at the time-their high water mark was at 47-9.

I've found it from the front page-click on articles, and blogs is listed as an option under that.

You're also assuming Clement is worth a crap by then, which is doubtful. His contract is done after 2007 though. Can we add him to the list of 2003 Dusty Baker casualties? I was surprised he lasted as long as he did. If it was, it's not reflected in the Pitcher Abuse Points. The highest Clement finished in his two years with the Cubs was 2004, and he was 35th (he finishe d 50th in 2003). That's not very high to really blame the manager on this one for abuse-I think Clement just broke down.

Murton should be the starting LF'er. End of story. Um, Murton getting at-bats in right doesn't hurt his chance of being the starting LF. It does however allow Murton and Floyd to play together sometimes instead of having only 2 possible combinations-Murton and Jones, or Floyd and Jones. Would you rather have Floyd only getting his at-bats at the expense of Murton and not Jones a little bit as well? Because one thing we do know, and that is that Floyd is not going to be in RF a whole lot-he almost certainly wouldn't be able to play it. So if you don't want at-bats for Murton in RF, you're essentially taking at-bats away from him.

I was going to put this as an edit to my previous post, but I just decided to tack it on as an extra post. Let me try to state this a litle more clear, athough I'll leave the ramblings up there at the top. What I'm saying is that those career numbers for Izturis, both minor and major leagues are somewhat misleading. Izturis has not been consistently near those numbers (meaning that he didn't remain static, which would have showed that he wasn't developing, and neither did he go up then down then up then down. At each league, he continued developing until he could hit against that league, and every league the team promoted him way too fast right when he was starting to look decent at that league and not letting him look good in any league. Look at his numbers from age 17: 17-low A-.190/.241/.216-with this performance, they promoted him 18-A ball-.262/.297/.305-with this again, they shouldn't have but they pushed him up to high A 19-high A ball-.308/.337/.422-for a defensive shortstop, these numbers would be worthy of a move up to double A-did they do that? No-straight up to Triple A instead 20-Triple A-.218/.253/.278-ugh, that's what happens when you move a still developing hitter up two levels-at least they had him repeat this level 21-Triple A-.292/.310/.374-better, but he could really have used one more year in Triple A instead of going straight to the majors. He also perfromed ok in the majors in limited at-bats. 22-Majors-.232/.253/.303-again, another league that he wasn't ready for-he should have been in Triple A this year 23-Majors-.251/.282/.315-this should have been his first year in the majors, and it's terrible, but that's not too surprising for a defensive shortstop who's bat is developing slower than his glove. It is 30 points better than the previous year though. 24-Majors-.288/.330/.381-Now he's getting it. It's the first time in his career that he's been able to stay at one level long enough to finally catch up after all those promotions, and he improved by over a 100 points. 25-Majors-.342/.387/.424-these are his April and May numbers before his injuries. The Dodgers tried to keep him in the lineup, which led to his putrid numbers until they shut him down, and then he's had 1 1/2 years of injury-filled bad numbers since with limited at-bats (since he missed a large part of 2006 and the last 2 months of 2005). The key question is the injuries-will it keep him from developing like he had been? Before that though, Izturis was showing every sign of coming into his own and becoming at least an average shortstop offensively. It just remains to be seen if he can re-capture that with all the injuries and time away from baseball.

You've exceeded your Geocities bandwidth, is there any way you could upload it to ImageShack or PhotoBucket so that the rest of us could see it? That's strange-I saw it earlier when he put it up, but you're right, it's not there now. It was pretty good when it was there. I can still see it. :? I can see it again now

Minor league career: .262/.297/.332/.629 Major league career: .259/.295/.336/.631 Eek...that's worse than I thought! He has sub written all over him, if that, thanks TT. One thing that has to be remembered is that Izturis got pushed through each level. He really shouldn't have been promoted nearly as fast as he did, but his defense pushed him through every level. Because of that, he was always hitting at a level or two above his hitting development level. When he got to the majors, it was the same way. He came in at 22, and wasn't offesnively ready whatsoever and put up a .556. The next year he got a little better and put up a .597. Finally, he started to catch up with the speed he should have been developed at in the first place and had a decent 2004 (.711) and a great start before injuries to 2005 (.810 or so before the injuries at the start of June). Since then he's had injuries that have hindered his development. If he continues his developmental curve where he left off, it will be great-if the injuries hurt his game permanently, then he certainly has the potential to be awful. I'm just not sure how much value his minor league and first year or two in the majors have anymore when he was playing in leagues that he had no business playing in at the time. Every year he repeated levels though in the minor or major leagues until the injuries though, he improved his numbers significantly.

You've exceeded your Geocities bandwidth, is there any way you could upload it to ImageShack or PhotoBucket so that the rest of us could see it? That's strange-I saw it earlier when he put it up, but you're right, it's not there now. It was pretty good when it was there.

Is Todd Walker better enough though to warrant giving up a draft pick though? When you consider that the Cubs would have to give up (I think a 3rd round pick) as well as other teams would have to give up their first or 2nd to get Walker, it makes more sense why they would want to go with other similarly productive options at 2B now and keep the pick. I know I'd rather have DeRosa and keep that high pick to try to rebuild the farm system. OK I don't get it. If the Cubs would have given up a pick to get Walker, why didn't they have to give up a pick to get DeRosa. They were both FA's right? Did the Rangers not offer him arbritration? I thought the pick only changed hands if the player declined arbritration. If you're asking me "should the Cubs have signed Walker if he declined San Diego's arbritration offer", then no, the difference between Walker and DeRosa isn't worth a draft pick. In any event, the Cubs didn't have to trade Walker to begin with. Not trading him wouldn't have involved any picks going anywhere. Well, true, but by trading him they got a very intriguing prospect. Walker was classified as a type A free agent as a 2B, so if somebody signed him like the Cubs they would have been forced to give the Padres a draft pick. DeRosa qualified as a type B free agent because he was listed as an OF, and OF's numbers are much higher across the board than at 2B. With that, the Rangers get a supplemental pick for the Cubs signing him, but the Cubs didn't actually have to give up a pick for him. Ah, I see. It's difficult to keep baseball's arcane player signing rules straight. Who did we get for Todd Walker? Were they regarded as a very good prospect? Jose Ceda-a 19 year old pitcher out of the Dominican. He's raw, but he can really bring it-up to 99 miles an hour. He was rated as the 14th best rookie league prospect overall for the major leagues-I'm not sure where he falls on the Cubs rankings, but he definitely is worth the difference between Walker and DeRosa this year IMO.

Im not the only bears fan to question the ownership's frugal-ness. Those players have large contracts but the Bears are still 21 million under the cap. I have no problem with how much they do or dont pay players. I mean I wouldnt want the team to be in the cap hell that the titans, 49ners were or the redskins or colts are now. I just think it sucks that with how bad this team has been over the last 15 years, they finally get a solid head coach who takes them to the super bowl, and there offer is a 2 million dollars less a year than Bobby Petrino, a rookie NFL Head Coach or a couple hundred thousand dollars more than the Dolphins Defensive Coordinator. Its not like they are the Jaguars who are a small market team, and are not pulling in a lot of profit. They are near the top of the league in profits in the third largest market. Uh, the Colts are 7-8 million dollars under the cap even after franchising Freeney, and they still have some easy work that's going to get them even further under. They don't really have cap problems. I got that from John Clayton who said that the Colts are 5.9 million over. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505 That page says it was last updated on March 10th, 2006.

I don't see how any of that means he's more predisposed to success and moving up the ladder. Dallas just hired a purported QB guru. Wilson isn't going to get any credit if Romo does well. If Grossman gets better, people are going to credit the current coaches. Parcells will get all the Romo credit, along with some for Garrett. Very good points-I guess I'm wrong on this one :D

Im not the only bears fan to question the ownership's frugal-ness. Those players have large contracts but the Bears are still 21 million under the cap. I have no problem with how much they do or dont pay players. I mean I wouldnt want the team to be in the cap hell that the titans, 49ners were or the redskins or colts are now. I just think it sucks that with how bad this team has been over the last 15 years, they finally get a solid head coach who takes them to the super bowl, and there offer is a 2 million dollars less a year than Bobby Petrino, a rookie NFL Head Coach or a couple hundred thousand dollars more than the Dolphins Defensive Coordinator. Its not like they are the Jaguars who are a small market team, and are not pulling in a lot of profit. They are near the top of the league in profits in the third largest market. Uh, the Colts are 7-8 million dollars under the cap even after franchising Freeney, and they still have some easy work that's going to get them even further under. They don't really have cap problems.

I don't think it's that rare. Lots of lower tier coaches find better jobs elsewhere after team success. Is going from being the QB coach on a Super Bowl team to being the QB coach on the Cowboys a better job? It might be when your QB is getting soundly criticized (deserved or no) and eventually some of the blame might fall on you, and instead you go to a job where you're more predisposed to be a success and to continue to move up the coaching ranks. Why is gowing from Grossman to Romo more redisposed to success? Dallas arguably has a bigger national following, at least from the media, than Chicago, so the scrutiny isn't going to be any less. They have more weapons, and plus at this point people are looking for anything to pick Grossman apart with-if it be deserved or not, Romo's going to get a little more of a free pass to have some bad games next year IMO. Plus, many people see the Chicago QB position as the difference between them and a title, so that brings even more scrutiny and pressure to live up to expectations.

I don't think it's that rare. Lots of lower tier coaches find better jobs elsewhere after team success. Is going from being the QB coach on a Super Bowl team to being the QB coach on the Cowboys a better job? It might be when your QB is getting soundly criticized (deserved or no) and eventually some of the blame might fall on you, and instead you go to a job where you're more predisposed to be a success and to continue to move up the coaching ranks.

Hmm-ex-Pacers going everywhere today. Thought of the day-never acquire an ex-Pacer. Many have wanted to be shipped out to find greener pastures, and very few if any have ever had any success again.

Is Todd Walker better enough though to warrant giving up a draft pick though? When you consider that the Cubs would have to give up (I think a 3rd round pick) as well as other teams would have to give up their first or 2nd to get Walker, it makes more sense why they would want to go with other similarly productive options at 2B now and keep the pick. I know I'd rather have DeRosa and keep that high pick to try to rebuild the farm system. OK I don't get it. If the Cubs would have given up a pick to get Walker, why didn't they have to give up a pick to get DeRosa. They were both FA's right? Did the Rangers not offer him arbritration? I thought the pick only changed hands if the player declined arbritration. If you're asking me "should the Cubs have signed Walker if he declined San Diego's arbritration offer", then no, the difference between Walker and DeRosa isn't worth a draft pick. In any event, the Cubs didn't have to trade Walker to begin with. Not trading him wouldn't have involved any picks going anywhere. Well, true, but by trading him they got a very intriguing prospect. Walker was classified as a type A free agent as a 2B, so if somebody signed him like the Cubs they would have been forced to give the Padres a draft pick. DeRosa qualified as a type B free agent because he was listed as an OF, and OF's numbers are much higher across the board than at 2B. With that, the Rangers get a supplemental pick for the Cubs signing him, but the Cubs didn't actually have to give up a pick for him.

It's been mentioned, and it happens every time. There's not much to discuss. They already used it. So they will either sign him for 2007, sign him longterm, or get a nice return via trade. Or the 4th option that happens to many franchised players-a long and drawn out holdout. I think Briggs will be more reasonable than that, but sometimes you never know. I wouldn't really call that a 4th option. It's something that might happen before one of those three things occurs, but it's not an outcome. Well, sometimes that either leads to trading him for much lesser value, or Briggs not showing up until week 10. What's the history of guys not showing up until week 10? Does it really happen? I could see him missing all of training camp, but don't really care about that. He's an experienced pro, and not a QB, so it really doesn't matter. In 97, Sean Gilbert held out the entire season. In 98, Dan Williams held out the season after being franchised Joey Galloway held out with Seattle till about week 10 (I can't remember the exact week he came back) Keenan Mcardall held out half the season in 04 till TB caved and traded him to SD Deion Branch last year would have held out and said that he wouldn't report till week 10 before the Patriots caved and traded him after week 1 I think only half of those involved the franchise tag, but those were just the ones I could come up with immediately, and I'm sure there have been others. There have been several cases though of people holding out much longer than training camp though, and it usually turns ugly for the club when that happens. I hope Briggs is not that ridiculous.

Thanks Vance and please keep posting this stuff! I like the fact that he has the confidence to want to be the guy and I hope he remains realistic on his abilities and his role on the Cubs. Yeah, I don't mind the first quote either. Floyd thinks that he can play his way into being the everyday starter if he's the best outfielder of the 3 corner ones-I don't mind him thinking that, and I don't mind if it happens as long as he actually earns it and doesn't get it handed to him for nothing or after just a few at-bats.

It's been mentioned, and it happens every time. There's not much to discuss. They already used it. So they will either sign him for 2007, sign him longterm, or get a nice return via trade. Or the 4th option that happens to many franchised players-a long and drawn out holdout. I think Briggs will be more reasonable than that, but sometimes you never know. I wouldn't really call that a 4th option. It's something that might happen before one of those three things occurs, but it's not an outcome. Well, sometimes that either leads to trading him for much lesser value, or Briggs not showing up until week 10.

Is Todd Walker better enough though to warrant giving up a draft pick though? When you consider that the Cubs would have to give up (I think a 3rd round pick) as well as other teams would have to give up their first or 2nd to get Walker, it makes more sense why they would want to go with other similarly productive options at 2B now and keep the pick. I know I'd rather have DeRosa and keep that high pick to try to rebuild the farm system.

I'm not winning this argument, so I give up. You win. It's not a big deal anyway-I'll give up too, and we'll call it a draw.

It's been mentioned, and it happens every time. There's not much to discuss. They already used it. So they will either sign him for 2007, sign him longterm, or get a nice return via trade. Or the 4th option that happens to many franchised players-a long and drawn out holdout. I think Briggs will be more reasonable than that, but sometimes you never know.

Okay, now I'm more confused. I think his 2006 salary was modest, I wouldn't call it underpaid. It was low because 2B don't make much unless they are really good, and Walker isn't really good. He's okay, but replacable. And the fact that so many 2B make the minimum just shows how easy it is to find 2B, and thus, why the prices are so low. You're not confused, instead you just argued my point-thanks :D

I wouldn't assume that. They determined he was healthy enough to take a risk, not necessarily "very healthy". I'm just taking it from Bruce's comments earlier in the offseason that they wouldn't be ready to sign him unless they could feel confident about his health situation, which tells me that he is at least healthy right now.

He looks like Ryan Howard...without the injury luck. Fixed. Cliff Floyd has been a pretty damn good player in his career when healthy. I mean, he's no Ryan Howard, but a damn good hitter when he's been healthy. It would be funny to see a ball hitting the wall behind him while he's doing that. I wonder how healthy he is? I'm sure he's very healthy right now because I'm sure the Cubs looked at the medical reports very carefully before signing him. If he stays that way or not is a very different question though, and one that I'm not sure anybody would know.