CubColtPacer

Third time I've posted this. Restovich's Major League numbers against LHPs is .280/.340/.430. Perfect platoon partner for Jones. This would certainly be better than Jones hitting against lefties, but I wouldn't want those numbers going in for a guy who only is going to hit against left handers. Surely we can find a person for 2007 that can hit one side of the plate better than that.

Please elaborate. :lol: After pierre lazily fielded the ball, allowing Snell to go to third, Aramis threw his hands in the air and leaned his head back. He was obviously frustrated. A-Ram is pissed at someone else for dogging it? That's a hoot!!!!! I'm sorry, but until the rest of this team produces 1/4 of what Aramis does year in and year out, I'll continue to give him free pass after free pass, while I will not for someone like Pierre. Well, I just reviewed the play-believe me, with Pierre's arm, he was not getting him at third-not a chance.

I hope you're joking there..considering Bynum was on the other side of second on that play. its his job to back 2nd up on that play, and by the time he was over there, he almost could have had that, at least it looked like that, but he just lolli-gaged it and wathed the ball go into CF I didn't see him over that far. I'm just not sure how a guy playing 2B is supposed to be able to cut off an errant throw by the pitcher that is several feet wide on the shortstop side of second..that is a long way to go in a very short amount of time. naaaaaaaaaaaa....SS is ranging towards 1st, 2nd is ranging towards LF, bynum had a better angle and momentum to get to that then Theriot did... Well, in that I would agree with you. Zambrano's throw gave Theriot absolutely no chance to catch it. I just don't think Bynum could have gotten to it either, although you are right that his momentum could have possibly given him a small shot at it (I think the throw was too hard for that)-it was just the 1st of two terrible fielding plays by Z that have cost him all 4 of the runs he's given up.

I hope you're joking there..considering Bynum was on the other side of second on that play. its his job to back 2nd up on that play, and by the time he was over there, he almost could have had that, at least it looked like that, but he just lolli-gaged it and wathed the ball go into CF I didn't see him over that far. I'm just not sure how a guy playing 2B is supposed to be able to cut off an errant throw by the pitcher that is several feet wide on the shortstop side of second..that is a long way to go in a very short amount of time.

I hope you're joking there..considering Bynum was on the other side of second on that play.

I wish we could see this Cubs philosophy at the plate every game. They've taken pitches, only hit balls early in the count if they were good strikes, and have done a very good job battling late in the count today.

Nice to see Z get out of the 1st without a ton of pitches. The first couple innings (and the last inning he pitches) have really been where he's limiting himself by throwing too many pitches to get the outs he needs.

Zambrano more than any other player I have ever known has me holding his breath to make sure he's not hurting himself and laughing at the same time-a very strange sensation.

Yeah, I was just watching that on the replay from that show. It was actually Bill Plaschke who said that Pujols had no chance-he gave it to Beltran because of his higher OPS than Howard has. I have no idea if he was going to use OPS why he didn't pick Pujols considering Pujols has the highest by far of any of them. By the way, for those who are scoring at home (just for entertainment value, not for their opinion as serious baseball experts) Blackistone voted for Howard, Mariotti firmly voted for Howard, Woody voted for Pujols, and Plaschke as I said above voted for Beltran (which is an ok choice) but of course said Pujols had no chance, which the host didn't agree with. Believe me, I don't listen to this show for serious analysis-but it is entertaining.

Yup-a phenomenon that is happening intermittently the last 3-4 weeks, one that is actually well reasoned out. Wow, and it took Dusty how long in the season to figure it out? Well, in defense, the only time there was a person Dusty probably should have played there was the short amount of time when Restovich was up. Other then that, who were you going to put out there for most of the season?

Yup-a phenomenon that is happening intermittently the last 3-4 weeks, one that is actually well reasoned out.

I sure hope we do not sign a player like Guillen for the outfield. That is the exact type of player we do not need-Guillen has always hit better against right handers than left handers for some reason. We need to find a guy who can drill left handed pitching so we can platoon him with Jacque. Any opinions out there on who that guy could be (if we don't go home-grown and go with somebody like Restovich)?

I definitely agree with that. Because of the two infield situations we used most often (Walker at second/Mabry at first, or Neifi at second/Walker at first) Lee's at bats would essentially come at the expense of Neifi/Mabry. If replacing one of the worst hitters in the game with one of the best hitters in the game only results in 2-3 extra wins, then how is a bad team ever going to become good?

I believe they said that he changed numbers the day after Neifi left.

11 walks in August for Jones..and he has been called out on strikes on a 3-2 pitch and walked twice tonight.

Well, a strange way to do it..but 2 runs out of a bases loaded 0 out situation is all right-not great, not terrible.

Before or after the internet? :) After..he turned around and high fived his assistant when it was done :D

Well, I don't really care if we win the game-I just thought that if Guz was going to be ineffective, we could give Rusch one more chance to hopefully increase his trade value (his value can't get much worse, so there's not much danger of that). Of course, I said that before the Bay strikeout-if he's going to get out of the inning, then you shouldn't pull him and hurt his confidence in between innings-so I like that he'll pitch for a while longer until he gets into trouble again.

No, Gameday has him at 52 for the game now.

Do you pull Guz here pretty soon, leave Rusch out there for a few innings-hope he does well, and gets traded by Thursday?

Was the pitch to Jones a good pitch? It is kind of strange the difference in his walk rate this month. He walked 14 times in 4 months, and have already walked 9 times this month-just wondering if that should have been number 10, or if he just got caught guessing wrong.

At least you didn't sign Jeff George like the Raiders just did :D

Worked well there, I thought. Talking to a couple of guys who are around Gm's everyday, they tell me that to be successful, you have to take risk's. Risk's as in signing players like Dempster, Miller, Carpenter, etc. Guys who are coming off arm injuries, are a risk. I dont know what is so around to understand. A good example of this, is Kerry Wood. Some GM is going to take a RISK on him. No gurantee he will stay healthy, but there is always that chance he will stay healthy. That is considered a risk. Nobody said you can't take a risk. What was wrong was your claim that the best GMs are the ones that take the most risks. Every team takes a certain amount of risk. More risks does not equal greater success. If it did, it would be pretty easy to fix your team, just take more risks. Successful GMs build a significant amount of predictable production, and spice it up with some risks. But they don't put the hopes of the team on the shoulders of the most risky players. Yup, it's like picking the NCAA tournament in a way. Picking all the number 1 seeds to go far (just signing sure things) will make you decent, but rarely if ever the best. Going through and picking some upsets or risks that have a decent chance of working (Carpenter or players like that) are what can make you the best. If you take too big of risks, like 2 16's beating a 1, and your entire bracket/team is based on that, then you might win and be a genius one out of every 100 years (if that), but most of the time you're just thought of as terrible.

Yes. Goony and Fred have hit the nail on the head. CW= conventional wisdom. The ideas that we want clutch hitters, the idea that a speedy guy is needed at the top of the order, sac bunting, walking a hitter to set-up a double play, etc are all examples. I prefer a manager that knows about those things, but has looked at them critically. So are you guys saying Girardi lacks Conventional Wisdom? Whatever the case what he's doing in Florida is pretty damn amazing. Espically for a first year manager. No, I'm saying Giradi relies too much on conventional wisdom. That's what I meant... I don't see enough of his games to see if he does or not. I haven't either...but some of the quotes I've heard seem to be imply he has a strong reliance on it. It's always been my fear ever since people have bandied his name around. Girardi gives me the impression of a manager who would rely on the old adages to a fault. I'm also concerned that if given his way, he could end up with some Dusty-lie veteran fetishes. While he didn't in Florida, he didn't really have the opportunity. Exactly-and every time Girardi's name is brought up, people come up with "He's better than Dusty". Sure, he is-just because he is an upgrade doesn't make him the right man for the job-we could be saying many of the same things about Girardi 3 years from now. Could he be the right hire? Of course-but his Florida experience is closer to managing a minor league team to great things than managing a normal major league team (because it is so full of young players trying to prove themselves instead of potential big ego veterans). There is just so little we know about Girardi and his managerial style with a team like the Cubs that it would be a risk.

Agreed-which is why we can't pay him 8-10 million dollars. He is a role player that has value in his purpose around the rest of the team, but 8-10 million is the money you need to be reserving for your stars, and Pierre would be way overpaid for that type of money. Since a team is going to offer him that much, that's why we offer him arbitration, hope he declines and signs elsewhere. Even though I fully expect he'll have a better year next year than this year, it is simply not worth it to sign him to a long-term deal whatsoever. Jones I have much less of a problem with-only because he is one of the cheapest right fielders in the league that has already been in free agency, and he is performing a little above the contract he has received (compared to other right fielders-they are an expensive bunch). I woud have rather put the big bucks star in right field, but Jones is doing what he is supposed to do-he is a good role player making role player money for right field.