questionmarkgrace

I actually think it does make sense to take garza off of the trade market right now. For one we can trade him after the season, secondly I think it actually helps us trade dempster now by limiting another potential trade target for a team looking for starting pitching. Shrink the market create more demand. Plus it would be nice to see Garza bounce back from a somewhat bumpy first half and increase his trade value. There is also the possibility that other teams are leery about the muscle fluid problem and are no longer offering what they were a few days/weeks ago.

My bet is that he sticks in the pen after a spot start or two. He was pretty solid in 2010 for the indians and hes got to be better than Casey Coleman. Perhaps even more interesting, he broke Mark McGwires little league home run record, threw a perfect game in the international league last year, and also started out with the padres while theo was there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Germano

And broadly tossing out statements like they can't lose lots of games without the Cubs better players playing poorly and damaging their futures is false. I don't think anyone actually said "damaging their futures," but whatever. If they did, I don't agree with that, but I do agree with a really bad team usually being indicative of badness across the board, and I don't see the sunny outlook others do when it comes to player development thus far. Shark has been fun to watch but he's hardly a sure thing and seemingly has entered into a period where we'll need to see if he can adjust, and while Castro has improved his defense and base-running his offensive approach is kinda...stagnant. I don't think either is "damaged," but I'm hardly going to sit back and look at both as being obvious success stories in a lost year. There's still time to tell. I like what Ive seen from Shark and Castro so far but they definitely need improvement to get to that next level. But for me what really hurts is that outside of rizzo, jackson, maybe one or two other guys our best prospects are at least 4 years away. And with jackson k-ing like he has been he is no sure thing to be a productive major leaguer. The system is very bottom heavy. that really needs to be addressed with the trades of garza and dempster, if it can be.

Wasnt Rudy a proponent of the 'aggressiveness in the zone' approach to hitting? In otherwords good hitting will naturally produce a high obp. Which seems assbackwards and thats why we saw alot of over aggressiveness by cubs hitters. Easy to say stuff like that when you have josh hamilton, raffy palmiero, ivan rodriguez and a host of other great hitters in a great hitters ball park. Im glad we will finally be stressing patience and pitch selection.

Im not neccessarily trying to do any predictive analysis with castro. THus far, he has not looked like a three hitter given how well he hits in other spots of the line up. He may very well end up as one because he is only 22 years old and still maturing. And yes 380 some at bats hitting third is plenty large enough of a sample size to analyze, extrapolate, etc. the general point I was making. Like Nuts and gum said though hitting third seems to have brought out some bad habits for Castro. Case in point, golden sombrero tonight against the astros.

The city assumes all of the risk because they have to loan out money that is currently counted on for a number of different projects at a time where they already do not have enough money to pay for basic services let alone all of the infrastructure projects that need to be started and completed. It makes much more sense for the city to re-pay them later with tax breaks then to loan out money that they need to use. Just because the sox and the bulls got a sweet deal doesnt mean its fiscally sound to do so in this economic climate.

He only has 178 at bats at the #3 spot for us - not exactly a big sample. A sample size >30 is statistically acceptable for the rigorours of analysis. So yeah I think that sample size is a decent sized one. uh - acceptable sample size depends on a lot of different factors. Obviously Tim, the more data the more precise our estimates are. But in general any graduate and under graduate statistical book will indicate that a sample size of > 30 is sufficient for analysis. Its your confidence intervals that adjust based upon how big your sample size is. In castro's case he actually has 340 plate appearances batting third for the cubs and has put up a line of .268/.287/.371. Im not saying he wont eventually mature to be a 3 hitter but the data tells me that hes not right now.

Let Lahair play left and right and play almost every day. Soriano has looked brutal running lately so he obviously needs to start getting a day or two off a week. Then dejesus can move in and out of center. Campana gets pinched for playing time but lets face it hes less likely to keep playing at the level he has been playing then Lahair is; although they have both been brutal the last week.

It may be an irrelevant move but you know if this were Hendry people would be flipping out.

He only has 178 at bats at the #3 spot for us - not exactly a big sample. A sample size >30 is statistically acceptable for the rigorours of analysis. So yeah I think that sample size is a decent sized one.

I realize that is how the people who want to make this a story want to frame it for the uninformed, but the Cubs are not asking for government money. Last I checked amusement tax dollars are still government funds. You can spin it how you want it but it is still money that would normally be going into the general revenue fund. It may be a good investment long term, but short term it sucks when the city and state have real problems that need to be fixed now. These are problems that transcend the cubs situation. I say let Ricketts fix it themselves and then offer them tax incentives to pay them back over the years. Doing it the other way around just doesnt make sense for the city and state right now. Also according to Crains and the Suntimes, the cubs are looking to keep 50% of the amusement funds increases and would like to use tax free bonds that are normally reserved for infrastructure projects which would save them/cost the city another $30million dollars. Why should the city assume all of the risk in this? I want Wrigley to get fixed as bad as anyone but its got to be the right deal and this just isnt it. On top of it all many of the Wrigley residents are not too happy about plans to close streets, increase night games, have street fairs/festivals/concerts. Its got to work for everyone involved not just for the cubs.

id prefer Lahair to Castro before his recent slump. but yeah there arent really alternatives. Mainly though his numbers hitting third for his career arent very good and thats what I was speaking to. He seems more comfortable better suited elsewhere.

I realize that is how the people who want to make this a story want to frame it for the uninformed, but the Cubs are not asking for government money. Last I checked amusement tax dollars are still government funds.

Amen brother, I think that Epstein and Hoyer deserve some criticism for this move. Koyie Hill is garbage. Any other catcher in our minor league system would have been serviceable for this short period of time that Castillo and Clevenger are out.

Back to the thread on Castro ... Castro has looked down right brutal at the plate lately. What gives? Plus his patience this year has been pretty bad. .303 obp in the last 28 days and overinflated by a high average when considering his totals thus far. I wasnt really on board with him as a #3 hitter in the first place but that decision is starting to look even worse right now.

Marmolitis noun def: acute necrotizing ulcerative condition caused by observing bad pitching. Symptoms include throwing the remote at the television, excessive use of vulgar language, and or loud outbursts of surprise and anguish

did dolis really need to come out for the 8th inning? I know the bullpen is short but seems like a questionable move with a rookie pitcher who has struggled a bit.

I know, suddenly it has become fashionable to play the role of penny pincher on this board. The fact of the matter is theo didnt win the WS by playing small market mentality with the red sox. Sure some of his prospects were difference makers but the vast majority of both teams were major trade or free agent signings. Anyone who thinks that the cubs can 'build' a world series contender solely through the draft is not only ignorant but arrogant. No team in the last 20 year years has won without a major free agent acquisition. Even the marlins teams. You cant ignore free agency. And you cant wait and assume free agents will be available when you need them. Sometimes you just need to go get them.

maybe this should go in some other thread ... http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120326&content_id=27633646&notebook_id=27634420&vkey=notebook_chc&c_id=chc So that leaves maine and russell as the only lefties. I'm not sure where Camp fits in but hes a solid reliever when used correctly i.e. when he faces a minimum of left handed hitters.

Is $9 million a year for 4 years really that high for a big market team with next to no big contracts on the books? Cespedes is a very high upside guy who would only have to be worth 2 WAR a year each year to be worth his contract. His defense alone might do that. Considering his age, our desperate need for impact talent, and how difficult it is to get reasonably priced players in FA, I think it would have been a very good gamble. Agreed. It made lots of sense. Im not really sure why the cubs werent willing to go four years. Seems like a no brainer considering his defense, raw power, and alternatives. If you remember though the cubs seemed liked they were in the drivers seat with this deal basically until the day he signed with the A's. Maybe Theo thought they were bluffing about a mystery team? Also CSC Bean has already come out and said that Cespedes will be the starting centerfielder for the year.

that's definitely not true really it is. there are special mixes you can use with concrete that allow it to cure in really cold tempuratures but it usually begins to crack after a few years. I.e it just wont cure right. Also when it snows no one is pouring concrete anywhere. In a normal winter construction work halts in november and doesnt begin again until march. Its too cold to work outside and when the workers can sit at home and collect unemployment for those frigid months you will have to actually overpay them to work. Sure there are some things you can do interior work etc. but for the most part work slows to a nonexistent pace.

That's not the Cubs problem. Maybe this'll help Ricketts buy up more Wrigleyville property. Club 162(Since it's re-opening I've seen a total of roughly 3 people in on non-baseball days.) I'm looking at you. Correct. That blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the City of Chicago. The Cubs have tried to secure funds to renovate Wrigley without any downtime, but have been denied. Maybe this is just a threat, but if it's not, that area is in trouble and have nobody to blame but the city. I tend to think that the blame lies with the tribune more than anybody. Alot of improvements that could have been done in a month or two in the offseason were neglected for years resulting in the mess we have now. Also asking the city for funds in the middle of the recession, which makes sense from a business perspective, is just asking for too much in this climate when teachers and police officers are being laid off. Even if the city did hand them the money the original plan called for the cubs to play else where. they'll get it figured out even if Ricketts has to foot the bill initially with assurances and tax breaks to pay him back Also you have to realize that in a single offseason from oct- march there may only be a month at best two months where construction workers can actually work because of the weather. Concrete for instance just wont cure right when its very cold out.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58762&p=2718769&hilit=+folding+chair+#p2718769 I wanted actually proven players over Cespedes and, to a lesser degree, Soler, but we've instead taken the bold move of neither signing established stars when they were available for only money, or signing longer term, potential guys like the two Cubans (who I didn't want). The logic that's been tossed around about "oh god, that contract sucks I'm glad we didn't sign the best players available in FA the past 3 offseasons" is specious and terrible, and the "we're going to compete on parallel fronts" thing was bs as well, and the "we're not going to overpay Fielder and Pujols because we're going to go after the Cubans and reload for 2013 and beyond" thing looks like it's worked out splendidly to cap it all off. I see us sucking for the next two years at least. Exactly. Like I said earlier in the thread there hasnt been a world series winner in recent memory without a highly paid free agent acquisition on their team. Sure those contracts dont always look good if they are long term but its just something teams that have won have done. Its not like theo built that red sox team from scratch. Its much easier to do both, parallel fronts as it were. But yeah I havent seen it thus far.

I dont believe Ive said anything to be considered a spaz like the other guy. Good article by Danny Knobler talks about how the A's have been trying to spend money but players wont sign with them. http://danny-knobler.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/8590096/34822327 All I'm saying is that we can make long term moves and short term moves at the same time. in no way does one preclude the other. There is no reason to ever field a team like the one we presently have. We pay some of the highest ticket prices at least make it entertaining to watch.

Excuse me Cespedes signed for 9 million a year.