CubColtPacer

Cedeno has stuggled this season defensively, but every Dodger fan I've talked to says that Izturis is amazing defensively. There have been multiple people say that he is comparable to Visquel with the glove.

OK, let's look at this. Izturis's OBP was 330 in 2004. He had a .302 OBP last year-and would have probably been at least .330 again if he had not been hurt (.370 in April, .402 in May-he would have definitely cooled down from there, but he certainly wouldn't have dropped as much as he did if he hadn't gotten hurt). The reasonable thing we can expect in 2007 is probably between a .310-.340 OBP. He is 26 now, so he might still be getting better. This is a player who you can easily have in your starting lineup and have him be productive. The trick is we need to get more offensive talent at other positions. If we do that, Izturis is about what Cedeno's upside is anyway at least to me. This is an upgrade at shortstop with a much higher cost, but a severe downgrade if it just means we move Cedeno to second-for 2007. Moving Cedeno to second really doesn't make sense-he can't hit, his best thing about his defense is his range, which would be much less valuable at second, and his errors come from his throwing-which will be almost as bad from second. So, if we can sign a big bat for second base instead of Cedeno, we will be getting a slightly better hitter with much better defense at short.

Does anybody know if he played for a while before realizing he was hurt last year? I see that he put up a .370 OBP in April last year and a .402 April in May, followed by a .154 in June. Was he playing hurt then? If so, he still might have a chance to at least get up to a .320-.335 OBP or so. He put up a .330 when he was 24, was playing better than that at 25, got hurt-and has had limited at bats this year some of them coming back from an injury. He at least has the chance to be good.

The people on the Dodger board are actually comparing Izturis to a young Omar Vizquel-they said he is getting better with the bat just like Omar did. I'm pretty sure I don't believe it, but I guess it makes me feel marginally better about the deal-doesn't mean I like it though.

This is funny-I've never seen a deal where both teams fans hate it worse then this. I've been going on to the Dodgers message boards to try to gauge their reaction, and I'm seeing a lot of the same thing, although more toned down then this. Needless to say, 85 percent of them hate the deal also. It's all very confusing.

Ok..now we have Izturis, and he is pretty terrible. What is the most reasonable best case scenario? The only thing I can think of is that Izturis replaces Cedeno after the season at short and then they sign a second baseman. It's still worse than what we were yesterday, but it is possible they do that. I can't think of any other scenario that is decent at all.

CBS Sportsline says Izturis right on the top of their front page.

The only thing I've found on him so far is just impressions from a message board. They said that he was a big kid with a mid 90's fastball who could move fast through the system (of course, the Padres at the time).

From the ESPN chat why the Angels should not trade for Aramis: I actually think the best thing for the Angels to do IS to stand pat. Aramis Ramirez doesn't seem to fit what the Angels do, though he is an offensive 3B. His makeup and lack of intensity always has been a red flag for clubs, and the Angels seem to value that kind of thing very highly. I think their recent track record supports their stance. I'd keep taking my chances with their young guys such as Howie Kendrick and see if Brandon Wood can make a move to 3B sooner than later, rather than giving up on good young talent for a possible poor fit like Ramirez That's very funny considering the recent discussion of the board.

That's my point. Allowing emotions to determine personel moves is a great way to ruin a franchise. The smart thing is to look for 2007, and keeping Maddux around stifles 2007. Hill is only getting starts because Marshall isn't. Dusty is looking for any excuse to pull the plug after 1 or 2 outings. And since when does 2 months of baseball equal 5 starts for a pitcher? If Hill gets 4 days rest after every outing, he could get 12 more starts this season, which would blow away the "opportunity" he's been given so far in his career. I care about the Cubs. It's been cool getting to watch Maddux and he's an amazing pitcher. But he hasn't been good since returning to the team and his only value to this team would be as trade bait. Don't you think that if Maddux left that Dusty would just start Rusch instead of 3 rookies in the rotation?

Buster Olney update reported on ESPN Sportsnation Chat: The Red Sox and the Braves have talked about a deal that would send Andruw Jones to Boston for Coco Crisp, Craig Hansen and a prospect. But according to an executive familiar with the discussions, the Braves made a counter offer, asking for Jon Lester to be the third player. Now that would be an interesting deal.

It is a perfect situation for the Cardinals and Cubs-they can honor Bruce and not lose 42 because it has already been retired throughout the league anyway for Jackie Robinson.

If Santana is making the start tomorrow, there is no deal-trade deadline is 6 hours before that game starts.

Question about Aybar: do you think his SB percentage would go up if he tried less? For example: 2004: 51 steals, 36 times caught 2005: 49 steals, 23 caught at a higher level I think that is he only attempted 30-40 a year, he might be able to increase his percentage significantly-but he was stealing so much in 2004 that teams were completely prepared for it. What do people think?

I don't think it's a big reason, but it is certainly possible. I remember at IU this past season during the basketball season that when Davis announced he was leaving at the end of the season regardless that the players no longer felt they were playing for his job, and started to play much better. It also is known that in the majors after a managerial change the team tends to play better at least for a few days. I think some of the pressure is off the team now, but I think the two main things were that 1)with the exception of Washington, the team has been playing better the last few weeks and 2)It was the Cardinals.

I would agree with that too-that's what the game thread is for isn't it? Discussions like these are always fun-especially when the Cubs are winning against the Cardinals! Not much to cheer about this year-at least we can have fun talking about if the 6th run today can score or not when it would take us 5 or 6 games to do that earlier in the year.

How would Murton have been out by 10 feet? The ball was 20 feet up the 3rd base line. He would have scored easily. Yup-I just rewound my Tivo..the catcher caught it about 5 feet up the line-but he was right on the line, and the throw home came so fast that there is no way that Murton would have been there yet. He would have been out easily.

Bob would have sent him. Why sac bunt if you aren't going to send him? Pagan is so terrible. Makes you long for Wendell Kim, huh? Personally i would have let Z hit. Pagan is minor league roster filler. What makes you so sure? He has decent numbers this year for a bench player-.262/.314/.431

I wouldn't have sent him..Encarnacion had good momentum towards the plate on a short fly ball-hindsight shows that Murton would have been out by 10 feet at the plate. Also, Pierre was up next, and he has been hitting so well lately-including two more solid swings today.

Yes..the problem is what would be Abreu's contract demands for the Cubs? Abreu told a reporter that he would accept the trade without many of the guarantees he wanted just because it was the Yankees. The Cubs would probably have had to guarantee his option and might have had to also give him an extension to get Abreu to agree.

You don't think the Cubs should care about 80 percent of their fan base? I don't think that most of the casual fans know if Dusty should be fired or not-what they see if he has had 1 very good year, 1 good year, 1 decent year, and a terrible year. Many of them see Prior and Wood as the big parts of the team, and so they are obviously willing to excuse the team when they go down. Right or wrong, the perception of that fan base matters. No, I don't. The Cubs should do what's best for the team and organization. If that means trading Maddux, you trade him. Listening to fan opinion is a horrible, horrible way to run a franchise. Also, yes, I think most all Cubs fans want Dusty fired. The casual fan may not know the exact reasons why he should be fired, they just see the declining results and want him fired. Worse record=poor manager. That's the casual thinking, most definitely. True-the Cubs should do what's best for the organization first. I'm not saying that you let the fans run the team-but when a decision is close, the fans should definitely play a factor. If we can't get a good return for Maddux, then unloading him for almost nothing and opening up a spot on the team needs to be balanced against the influence that Maddux has on the young pitchers and the reaction of the fans. It's a tough call that I won't be upset by either way the Cubs choose.

You think Willie Bloomquist is bad? Look up Neifi's numbers. Well, they are relatively close. Neifi's OPS is 22 points better this year after being 59 points better last year. Bloomquist has the better OBP-it's close, but Neifi has been the better hitter.

You don't think the Cubs should care about 80 percent of their fan base? I don't think that most of the casual fans know if Dusty should be fired or not-what they see if he has had 1 very good year, 1 good year, 1 decent year, and a terrible year. Many of them see Prior and Wood as the big parts of the team, and so they are obviously willing to excuse the team when they go down. Right or wrong, the perception of that fan base matters.

1, Casual Fans would have No idea what happened nor would care 2, he wasant traded, he wasant given a contract and signed as a free agent with the Atlanta Braves I know-didn't say he was traded the first time. I do have to disagree with the casual fans part, because I have a whole family of them. They watch a few games a year, check the scores every once in a while, but have no idea who any of the young players are. They still blame the Tribune company for not signing Maddux in the first place as a main reason we were terrible for most of the 90's, and they were thrilled when he came back. If he gets traded, they'll come to a person like me and ask what value if any we got out of the trade. If it is second-tier prospects, they will say that is the same old Cubs-now, that won't be the reality of the situation, because we know that getting something for Maddux is better then nothing, but that's not how it will be percieved by many Cubs fans-especially ones outside of Chicago who don't get to read articles on the team by just picking up a newspaper, and aren't big enough fans to try to find out the information.

I think he sort of authorized a trade-the only thing that concerns me is that Maddux said if Hendry can find the right players. Basically, I'm wondering if Maddux is willing to be traded for any prospect or if the Cubs need to get something good in return. There are intangibles to keeping Maddux-the idea that he can continue to mentor the pitching staff is one. Two is player loyalty-I think a situation like this could have a minor influence the next time a free agent decides to sign with us, especially if that FA is a veteran. Third is the issue of the casual fan. The casual fan still is upset that Maddux was given away in the first place, and will be very upset if they learn that he was traded away for basically nothing-they don't see how he is now, they see Maddux the HOF still. I think all these intangibles give some benefit to keeping him. Now, if I can get a decent to good prospect, I trade him away. If nobody is willing to give very much, then I take the intangibles and keep him here. If you take the intangibles how do you know what you've have beside a washed up pitcher taking a roster spot? Well, I wouldn't completely classify him as washed up-he is putting up average major league pitcher stats this year. And what do you mean about how do you know what you have? I know that Maddux has been helping the young pitchers, and as Olney said last night (I think he was quoting an NL GM at the time) that Hendry was in a tough spot because it is trading away a legend-which ties into my 2nd and 3rd intangible. Just because I can't measure them doesn't mean they don't exist, and all the other evidence points them to at least making a minor impact. What other evidence? and if there are other evidence does that not make the intangible tangible? Marshall and Marmoll haven't shown that much progress. All the romantic "Maddux is more than the sum of his parts" has an odor. Maddux was good, he no longer is. The Cubs are way out of contention. It's time to get rid of old players who are not good. The Cubs have to look toward the future or they will find themselves in the exact same spot they are in right now. And nobody wants that intangible. Yes, they do need to look towards the future. Getting prospects (like the Williamson deal) that most likely will not make the majors doesn't really help though. If we can get something decent for him, I'm all for trading him. Last week, I would have been upset that they didn't deal him. Now, after hearing that nobody is willing to give very much for him, I guess I just won't be very upset either way. If you are gambling on bad prospects making it or gambling on Maddux's intangibles making a difference, it really will end up making very little difference to the future of this team either way.