CubColtPacer

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.

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.

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.

I think anti-clutch definitely exists. Players are not robots, they react differently in different situations. It's human nature, some will tighten up and get stressed in clutch situations. However, that doesn't mean the opposite is true. Do some hitters actually focus better in big situations? If so, are they slacking the rest of the time? I don't think anti-clutch proves the existence of clutch, though. Anti-clutch existing proves the existence of clutch if you are assuming the definition of clutch is performing up to the statistical average/personal ability of the individual. I would use golf as an example of this. Let say you were a good golfer and were able to go to a driving range and hit it a driver straight at will and place the ball where you wanted. Would you consider that clutch if that person was able to take that ability onto the golf course and play a round by himself and be able to drive the ball well. Probably not. This is because there was no pressure. Now let’s say he was playing in some tournament and was able to continue to hit perfect drive after drive. You may now consider this guy clutch now that it is during a pressure situation and the guy continues to perform. Exactly..the stats show that as a whole, performance goes down in these key situations. It is obvious why this is-the other team's pitcher bears down, relievers are brought in to face one batter, and other things set up the batter to fail. If you can maintain your production in these situations, that can certainly be defined as clutch. At the beginning of the game, everybody gets to face the same guy. With the game on the line though, the left hander who is devestating against left handed hitters comes in, and it's the job of that hitter to get a hit anyway. If you can take a teams best punch and still stay the same type of hitter, you are clutch.

Well, I doubt that Edmonds will have a similar OPS unless something major happens (he's about 60 points behind right now). I also think that those two players are completely different-Edmonds is 36, while Lee is 30. It still doesn't derail your point though that Lee will be overpaid-if he's looking for 5/75 that will be overpaying him by a pretty large margin. Not as much as the Furcal contract, but still overpaying.

Where did you see that? If that's true Baltimore is not smart. It was mentioned on ESPN News by Buster Olney an hour ago that the Angels have offered Ervin Santana and Aybar for Tejada, and that the Orioles are considering it.

Well, considering it was implied that the Mets could get Zito at anytime for Milledge, I'm pretty sure Maddux won't get it done.

I bet that Pierre will be ahead of Patterson in 2 of those 3 categories by the end of the season. He is catching up-very fast. Your on. I think I would have to put my money on JP in this wager as well. Pierre is already ahead of Patterson in average and OBP as of right now, unless Pierre or Patterson changed that with their performances today. Yup, I wasn't sure when I bet that a couple weeks ago that Pierre would catch him this quickly, but he definitely has. In fact, in OBP, Pierre is starting to pull away.

Apparently Mabry is the walking machine now.

Pierre was 3 off the major league top 10 entering today-should get it in the next few days I bet.

Neifi's been confused by his bat a lot lately. Well, not this month. This is Neifi's I'm going to hit pretty well one month. He was hitting .333 this month starting today's play with a .500 slugging percentage.

Mabry has been exceptionally patient this month-27th PA, and that's his 8th BB of the month.

That's scary when I look at Neifi in the 2 spot and say that with this lineup, that's where he should be. Well, he also is hitting well this month-well, at least better than half the people in our lineup today. In short, I like the order-just not the people in the lineup today.

yes... thanks for summing up what I said.With the way this team is built 2007 is not going to be great either. I think they should blow this puppy up at all levels of management and make a real run at 2009. Most of us aren't willing to wait another 3 years. With the payroll the Tribune is supplying the team, there is absolutely no excuse to not be in contention every year. Yup-there is no reason this team cannot be good next year-we have a good core of players-we just need to build around them-another productive bat or 2 in the lineup, a #2 starter, and a better bench would do nicely into pushing us back into having a pretty good chance to contend next year.

I also think this is mostly true of the Cubs style of player in general. I think players who like to attack the first good pitch they see go into a slump they lose that confidence and start to take a few pitches. I'm guessing their strikeout rate will also go up, but thier walk rate does too as they get deeper into counts. Jacque Jones is a perfect example of this. When he is going right, he is hitting one of the first 3 pitches. When he goes deep into the count, he really begins to struggle. I think Jones might be one player who might be better under the Cubs philosophy. If you look at his career numbers, you notice that his walks go way up when his average goes down, especially in 2004 and 2005. Part of this might be attributed to pitchers pitching around him, but I think part of it is due to Jones taking more pitches early in the count. Finally, look at it this way when you have a player like Jones. If you are deep in the count, you are likely to throw him a pitch low and inside to try to get him to strike himself out. He usually will chase it, but he won't always and that will increase his walk total. When he is hitting well, he has already put a strike into play earlier in the count.

The reason is quite simple - we are the worst organization in professional sports. COUGHSNEWYORKKNICKSCOUGHS.... Cubs, in a landslide. Here's the difference why the Knicks are definitely worse. At least the Cubs have the chance to be better in the next couple of years. The Knicks can't for several reasons. 1) They easily have the highest payroll in the league, and yet it is filled with all of the same type of player-either shoot first point guards or too small forwards-these players are all signed for at least 3 or 4 years down the road. 2) They make the most ridiculous trades ever-they traded for Eddy Curry, and basically gave away the #2 pick in this draft for him, and probably a top 5 pick in next year's draft-so they can't even get better with their draft picks because they trade them away for too small forwards or shoot first point guards with bad contracts. 3) They just bought out Larry Brown for 40 million dollars-and they appointed Thomas as coach in his place. Even without the previous two, this point would make them a serious contender for worst franchise in sports.

Ramirez tripled? At home? Did somebody fall down or dive for the ball?

For those watching the game: is Marmol anywhere close on most of these pitches? Or is he missing badly?

Please no need to bring up Patterson. As was the case earlier, only relevant comparisons are allowed. :P See previous posts. Except that Patterson was traded to bring in Pierre. As TT pointed out, Hill and Marmol aren't competing for the same spot. They kind of are: next year it will likely be Z, Prior, FA Pitcher, Marshall, and the better of Hill/Marmol. What relevance that has I don't know, but I think they are both competing for the #5 slot.

I hope Cedeno can get it together quickly. His line for July before that at-bat- .138/.162/.154-for a .316 OPS-ouch. I just hope he isn't destroying any confidence he has.

Can someone describe what happened for those who can't see the game?

Marmol seems to have lost it..8 straight balls to the 8 and 9 hitter is not good. Let's hope he can get it back and salvage this inning.