CubColtPacer

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.

Link Isn't Theriot a "true" shortstop? Hasn't he logged sufficient minor league innings at the position? Doesn't he play it pretty well? Yeah, I don't understand that. From what I've heard, Theriot and Bynum have both played shortstop a decent amount in the minors (Theriot probably more than Bynum because Bynum has played a little bit of everywhere). I'd like to see Cedeno get a day or two off to clear his head again and go with a Theriot/Bynum DP combination (I don't care whatsoever which way you go with that-but probably Theriot at SS and Bynum at 2B). After that, put Cedeno back at 2B where you wanted him to learn the position. The only good thing is-the longer he's at SS, the less likely we pencil him in as the starting 2B next year.

08/21 - 08/27 AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Blanco 9 1 4 2 0 0 6 1 0 1 0.444 0.444 0.667 1.111 Barrett 18 2 1 0 0 1 4 3 1 2 0.056 0.105 0.222 0.327 I can only assume, since you didn't type any text, that you think these stats support Baker's decision. I don't care if Barrett is in a terrible slump (though he's also recovering from injury, may not be fully healthy, and some of the days covered by your stats, he clearly wasn't 100%). The fact that Blanco is 4/9 in his last 2 games doesn't justify putting him in a tie game w/ the division leader (and your rival) over the guy who has been your best and most consistent hitter all season. Seriously, we're making decisions based on 9 ABs? I think the more important numbers were Barrett there. He is just coming back from his injury, and he is 2 for 18 since-and didn't look that good on his swings Sunday night. So even if Blanco remains at his career numbers, he might be just as good as Barrett right now (obviously Barrett when he gets his hitting stroke back is 100 times better). Also, Dusty was looking at a tie game and already using his 3rd reliever in the 7th inning. He didn't want to have to use his 4th reliever in the 8th already in case the game went into extras (especially since we knew the limit for Howry was 1 inning and Ohman can't go all that long either-so the only people who could give you innings down there was Dempster and Rusch). He had to try to stretch Novoa out to a couple innings at the time, and so he had to double switch-and Barrett not hitting well was the most obvious choice at the time.

Because he tried to steal third a few games back, and got thrown out. That's why. Bynum is the new Nefti Perez. That comparison would be fine if Bynum was starting over a player like Todd Walker who would definitely outproduce them by a wide margin-Theriot has had a great 40 at bats in the majors, but before that their two minor league careers were very, very similar. Neither player is any better than a 25th man (please note that I would love to see Theriot start while he is hot here-but his numbers are way over his head right now).

It's still the Cubs. They might not be the most attractive place to play right now, but they are more attractive then some clubs-and if they offer the money, people will come. Also, if you are a big hitter (say Soriano) you still know that you are going to be in one of the better middle of the orders in the league.

I think Murton can be just fine without getting up to .500 SLG, but it is not going to be easy for him to get up to that level. To compare, Pat Burrell is at .501 this year, and there are plenty of players we'd expect to be at .500 that are not (J.D. Drew, Ordonez, Abreu, Giles-the highest slugging for any of the 4 of them is .459). I'd expect more of a .450 to .460 SLG with a .375-.385 OBP-he'll be an above average corner outfielder that way who is cheap.

Yup-I can't believe that the LF situation is going to change anytime soon either way Since August 4th: Pittsburgh: Murton started 2 out of the 3 Milwaukee: " " Colorado: " " Houston: " " St Louis: " " Philadelphia: Murton-3 out of 4 starts in LF St. Louis: With the start tonight, Murton starts 2 out of 3 again. It looks like we will see Pagan just about once per series in LF the rest of the season, along with a few more starts in RF. It's not what we want, but the pattern is evident-more than most of Dusty's patterns anyway.

Sample size :D

Cubs have no need for Howard (and Ryan can't play anywhere else but 1st) with Lee on the team, so I would say CHASE UTLEY or bust.... With that said... People automatically assumes that Pierre who could be classed as a Type A Free Agent, would be offered arb. But what happens if Hendry doesn't offer arb to Pierre, ie like Nomar, and he leaves without getting any draft picks in return? Or better yet, what happens if Hendry does offer ARB, and so a team goes Boston/Clement on us? Meaning the Cubs would have to settle for a 2nd/3rd/4th rd pick at best for Pierre? Nomar was likely to get more in arbitration than in free agency, and so would be much more likely to accept arbitration. Pierre is very unlikely to accept arbitration, as he has a great chance of getting a multiyear deal from somebody. If he declines arbitration, and we only get a 3rd or 4th round pick, it still might be worth more than the Phillies would give up for 1 month of Pierre.

Not when you have Sammy going absolutely nuts. Those were pre-steroid Bonds-numbers. If one player could carry a team then the Rangers would have won the WS all three years they had ARod. Sosa's numbers were still better in 2001 than ARod's best year with the Rangers-which was actually 2001 as well Sosa: .328/.437/.737 64 HR 160 RBI's-OPS+=201 ARod: .318/.399/.622 52 HR 135 RBI's-OPS+=164 Their pitching also was terrible that year. They had 1 starter with an ERA under 5, and only 2 under 6. The Cubs pitching however was really, really good that year. 2 ERA's under 4, our 5th starter had an ERA of 4.52 All the relievers who pitched 45 innings or more had an ERA under 4 (Todd Van Poppel led the way with a 2.45 ERA) One player can carry a team on one side-it was basically Sosa and the pitching, but that was almost enough.

I think that's the whole reason for bringing him back. Obviously he won't help win this year, but he can gain confidence that he's fully healed and back to his usual effectiveness heading into next year. Derrek Lee is (after Pujols) the second best position player in the NL. He's not some rookie that needs to gain confidence at the big league level. He knows what he is capable of. Yes, but he is a player who has never had a significant injury before in his life. When you have that first huge injury, you still have doubts about if you will ever be exactly the same again. If he is healthy, then erasing that doubt in Lee's mind about exactly how much he can do will maybe mean that he won't have to test it at the start of next year, but rather can come into camp ready to have another big year.

That's not a terrible thing for you..he's just a career minor leaguer that has bounced around. He was with St. Louis till 03, then went to KC, then he went to Florida's organization in 05, then to the Cubs in 06. He has a 3.83 ERA in Iowa this year at age 29.

I would actually agree with this. Matsui is not a significant enough upgrade to both spend 13 million a season on him and trade away the pieces it would take to get him. If we were going to get someone to replace Murton, it might as well be Lee so that we don't have to lose the people we'd trade. Of course, I don't think Lee is worth the money either as an upgrade over Murton, so I would rather keep that money after Soriano is signed to 1) sign a platoon partner for RF and 2) Add the extra money to the pitching rather than replace an already decent piece to the puzzle.

I doubt they will care much if somebody claims Walrond in the offseason. He is turning 30 before next year-if he's not ready to pitch in the major leagues now, it's doubtful he will ever be.

If the Cardinals get into the playoffs and the numbers stay the same way they are, then Pujols will win. If the Cardinals miss the playoffs or Pujols slumps, then Beltran will win-anybody else will have to have an absolutely monster month to win.

Well, Nevin wanted to be traded..that home run might be his ticket out of here.

Well, he didn't exactly fault Mateo last night. In fact, he was very complimentary of Mateo's pitching after the game.

I definitely like straight winners for the pro game..if you want to do point spread in college that's fine, but I'm ok with straight there as well.