CubColtPacer

It's nice to see Coats used both games so far as a pinch hitter-he has struck out both times, but it doesn't look like he will waste away on the bench.

That will probably be the end for Guzman with him coming up in the order this inning. A very good outing for him-the key for him has always been throwing good strikes early in counts to set up his breaking pitch, and other than most of the 1st and a couple of batters later he did an excellent job with that tonight. This is something he can build on to hopefully have many more starts like that in the major leagues.

Yep. I had to say it. I actually thought to myself when Guzman threw the 3-0 strike to Howard that if he threw him another good pitch, it was going to be a home run-I almost wanted him to try to throw a breaking ball in that spot.

Why? We'll reach 5 pages before the end of the game :D

I know-of course the night where we decide to be very patient is the night that the wide strike zone has already caught 2 people looking.

Whatever Rothschild told Guzman in the 1st, I wish he would say it to all our pitchers-Guzman has pitched great since that point.

When's the last time the Cubs took the first 7 pitches of the ballgame?

First, he's been hitting .249 in the leadoff spot, not "under .230." But who cares about batting average? He's got a .341 OBP when htting leadoff this year, which is just .10 lower than his overall OBP this season. He's only hit second in the order in 14 games this season. 14 games isn't enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from his stats. Did you know that Neifi Perez had a .263 OBP in the 1 spot but a .375 OBP in the 8 spot last year? Jose Macias had a .270 OBP hitting first, but also had a .375 OBP hitting eighth. Matt Murton had just a .310 OBP hitting #7, but a .615 OBP hitting #8. Nomar had a .222 OBP hitting #3, but he had a .386 OBP hitting #5. Aramis was just at .231 hitting #3, but he was at .383 hitting #5. Burnitz had a .361 OBP when hitting cleanup, but just a .238 OBP when hitting #7. Barrett had a .431 OBP when hitting 5th, but a .241 OBP when hitting 7th. Stats based on position in the batting order are next to worthless if not completely worthless. The thing is-it's not just the stats that concern people. He just moved to the leadoff spot this year, and it is certainly possible he has just had a down year that coincidentally came with his move to the leadoff spot. Here's some quotes from Giles from August the 10th: And from later in the article: One more His slugging is down over 60 points this year. Just a change in the lineup order and a down year together might be coincidence, but I think there is a much greater chance of a link when the player himself says he is not very comfortable in that spot. I still like Giles, and would be fine if we got him if we didn't get Soriano to play 2nd-but I think batting him 1st would not bring the best results we could have from him. Edit: Here's the source on that article http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/sports/baseball/mlb/atlanta_braves/15238161.htm

Actually, Dusty did comment on that one-he called the Pierre steal from the dugout-so he can't exactly criticize Pierre since it was Dusty's fault. His comments were posted the next day at the end of that particular game thread.

How does that get scored for his OBP?

Well-certainly shaky there, but good job for O'Malley to only give up 1 there after getting into that jam.

I thought calling O'Malley up eliminated the open spot (since he wasn't on the 40-man), unless there were two spots previously open. If it is full, however, they could open a spot by transferring Wood to the 60-day DL. Wouldn't the Neifi trade open that spot back up again though? I think that's the spot that Coats took.

That's pretty much the best lineup we can put out today.

It's possible if these people take this overall contribution rule seriously. Neither his playing career nor his managerial career are HOF worthy, but considered together he has a chance. I think he'd have to go somewhere else and have sucess for 5 years or so (including a WS somewhere) to have a good shot at it.

I disagree that he hasn't done anything to show he'd be able to start. His 2005 happened. You can't just ignore it. He was great in AAA, at 22, and solid in the majors, again, at 22. He's been disappointing this year. But anybody who thought it was going to be a straight line upward just wasn't being realistic. This is why I was so dead set against going into this season with the lineup as weak as it was and Murton and Cedeno starting together. You had to expect struggles. The odds are in his favor for improving over the next couple of years. Cesar Izturis had a 52 and 61 OPS+ at 22 and 23. Everybody seems to be willing to pencil him in as starter but unwilling to give Ronny a shot. This makes no sense to me. I'd much rather go with Cedeno than Izturis. Neither is going to be all that good next year, but one does it for next to nothing. I think most people, including me, would be fine with trading Izturis and playing Cedeno at short next year. If they are both on the roster though and you are paying Izturis the money anyway, then he is still the better player of the two and should start. Their difference in production is not worth the difference in money right now, but there is a difference-and probably would be still a small difference even if Cedeno improved a small bit next year.

I think we'll be seeing a lot of Freddie Bynum at 2nd base! It's funny how Baker wouldn't play Walker at 3rd because it's too hard to move across the diamond but he'll move Cedeno back to SS so he can play a garbage favorite. On the positive side, Bynum might play his way off the roster. I don't understand what this means-who do you want to play in the middle infield? I expect most of the time it will be Cedeno and Theriot, but if Dusty wanted to, it would be just as likely to put Bynum at short and Cedeno at second as the other way around. Cedeno moving has nothing to do with Bynum-Cedeno is just the best shortstop we have with Izturis out.

I expect him to be as crappy in 2007 as he has been in 2005 and 2006. I'm not saying he will be much better..I just think he will improve his numbers about the same amount from 06 to 07 as from 05 to 06-unless he falls off significantly from his current pace, .335+ is probably his final number this year, and so expecting a .345 next year is not that unreasonable, I don't think. Having Pierre at the top of the order with a .345 is far from ideal-but it won't kill your offense either.

The Cubs aren't going to get any comp picks for Pierre. Do you mean because they are going to re-sign him, or because they won't offer him arbitration? They will resign him. I do too..I hope they offer him arbitration. If he declines, pick up the picks. If he accepts, sign him to a 1 year deal-I don't consider this that big of a problem, for I firmly believe Pierre will play better next year than he did this year (I think he'll have some up months and down months, but I don't think the down months will be as bad next year). I'm predicting a .345 OBP for him next year-which will be about 10 points better than the .335 I expect him to finish around this year. It won't be great, but it won't be a huge problem for one year. However, I want him only to be a placeholder for Pie in 08, and would be more upset if they signed Pierre to a multiyear deal-especially if it's 3 years or more.

The Cubs aren't going to get any comp picks for Pierre. Do you mean because they are going to re-sign him, or because they won't offer him arbitration?

Chicago's not hot all year though-in fact, it is quite cold for a decent part of the season. Here is a Dusty quote also about the same subject: "What I meant is that blacks and Latins take the heat better than most whites, and whites take the cold better than most blacks and Latins. That's it, pure and simple. Nothing deeper than that." Was it smart to say? No-but if it is your contention that he is racist against whites for saying they don't take the heat as well, then he is racist towards blacks and Latins for saying they don't take the cold as well. So he is not saying one race is better than another, just that they react differently to different situations. Here is the source for that quote. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cubs/2003-07-07-baker_x.htm

That stat line cannot be right. He doesn't have an OBP above .300. Yeah, I was confused by that for a minute also..and then realized he was putting it down as OBP/SLG/OPS.

I agree he would be a good pickup for the Phillies, but I just can't see them making a deal to increase payroll right now-they forced the Yankees to take Lidle, who is also a FA at the end of the season and makes less than Pierre-so I doubt they are suddenly going to try to pick up some more payroll, even if it is only for a month and a half.

Controversial, yes, but racist? The evidence isn't there. If one is racist and in the league for as long as Dusty has, shouldn't he have a string of incriminating incidents and quotes by now? Do you want to really pretend to know what's in his heart? I'm sorry but when you say "He honestly believes black people are quicker and better in heat, and therefore better at baseball", that's pure conjecture. You have nothing to back it up. Say what you will about Dusty's managerial skills and I'll most certainly agree with you: he's not a good game manager. But let's stop with the racism crap. Dusty's quotes are on about the same level as Al Campanis a few ago whom was promptly labeled a racist and fired. Al Campanis said: Dusty Baker said: CNN Transcripts: CNN Transcripts The thing is, he doesn't say anything about how each type of player plays in the heat. He doesn't say that the darker your skin is, the more likely you are to play baseball well in the heat. He only said that darker skinned people might be able to accomodate heat better. Was it smart of him to say? Probably not. At the same time, he practically said the same thing the other way when he was talking about being from those Northern cold states. The inference is that lighter skinned players would be more accomodating to cold weather. Is it true? It's impossible to tell-we do know that the lighter your skin, the more likely you are to have harmful effects of the sun-but I cannot think of a single way to prove conclusively one way or the other Dusty's claims other than anecdotal evidence. Even if it is true though, it has no discernable link to what happens on the field. It would be the same thing as somebody coming out and saying that men enjoy the cold more than women do-does that make a person sexist?

And the money to pay for Rusch in 2007. Let's keep the faith! Doesn't matter, all another team has to do is put in a claim on Rusch and Hendry doesn't even need to work out a trade, he can just let that team have Rusch, which includes his contract. Just getting rid of him is enough of a return on the trade if you aren't saddled with the contract. True, but I'm sure Rusch already passed through waivers near the beginning of August when Hendry probably put anybody he might want to deal on waivers. Can you pass through waivers while on the DL? :?: I don't think you can go through waivers on the DL, but if he went on waivers immediately in August, he might have passed them already before he went on the DL on the 3rd of August. It's hard to tell though with these things.

I understand about his defense and baserunning (although I think his defense overall has been pretty good-he's been very good at tracking down balls, and absolutely terrible with his arm). However, his numbers this year against right handed pitchers are good-very good. .311/.350/.538 If we could find a platoon partner who could hit lefties that well for 2-3 million, we'd have one of the top 5-6 right fields in the league (Jacque's splits would rank 10th in OBP, 2nd in SLG, and 4th in OPS among qualified right fielders this year). 7-8 million for that production would be a bargain-can we get this high of numbers again for Jones? Probably it will be somewhat lower next year-but it will still be a very productive position with a platoon partner.