MSG T

I can picture the conversation. Wittenmeyer - So Fonzie, what do you think of the chances the Cubs trade you. Fonzie - I just paid to play, if I traded, I put the same effort in for my new team. Wittenmeyer - So you'd waive your No Trade Clause? Fonzie - My what? I have a what? (mumbles something) Uh, yeah, I probably waive it to go to a contender Fonzie (on cell phone to agent in spanish) - I have a no trade clause? That mean I pick where I go? When the hell did that happen? Who put that in and didn't tell me?

They later added this part. I got a kick out of the bolded. So was Hendry just sneaking those things in back then? Thanks for spilling the beans, Wittenmeyer, you jackass.

The only thing that matters are the horrible results. Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. With the payroll they've had for the last 5-6 years or so, that is all that matters.

That paints Hamilton as an everyday failed uberprospect that comes along year after year. He hadn't played professional baseball in years. Years! And there was the whole devolution into hard drug and alcohol abuse as well. He was extremely likely to not make any type of contribution to a MLB roster at the time of the draft. put it this way: if Bryce Harper goes on a 4-year or whatever sabbatical and gets left unprotected for the Rule V draft, i'll still be advocating like hell we take a chance on him you can keep rationalizing reasons to pass up on guys with star potential and then you're left wondering why you don't have but one star player in the entire organization If Harper went on a 4-year drug and alcohol binge where he played no baseball, then came back and was really bad just prior to the Rule V draft, I wouldn't have a problem with the Cubs passing on him. I'm not a Hendry fan by any means, but looking at the Hamilton situation with 20/20 hindsight is dumb and unfair. There was NO ONE clamoring for anyone, let alone the Cubs, to take a flier on him. He was being looked at as a guy in the middle of what would most likely be a failed comeback attempt from something stupid he did to himself. As was alluded to earlier, it's more fair to point out top draft picks that were passed on, or Latin/Asian FA they didn't sign, than critique Hendry for passing on Hamilton.

Does anyone know if they fixed his mechanics? If not, he's likely to have more problems down the road.

3rd pick, but the point remains. Also, please see the 12 instances in this thread in which I've said that I don't blame Hendry for not taking Hamilton. My sole point is that the OUTRAGE about people supposedly mischaracterizing the failure to get Hamilton as a trade v. a missed pick is silly. As to Krivisky, I don't get your point. Obviously you think Krivsky is a moron. I agree. But grabbing Hamilton was undoubtedly a good move, no? The problem isn't that people innocently mischaracterize it. It's that there are tons of meatheads that think Hendry drafted Hamilton, then on a whim of insanity, traded him to the Reds. It's not semantics when there are people out there that think he actually belonged to the Cubs. Whether Hendry could have drafted him is immaterial, people think he did. You are correct in saying that Hendry could have chosen him, had they not made the deal with the Reds. But people that say "the Cubs traded away Josh Hamilton" don't get the slight differences in there. They actually think the Cubs drafted him then traded him. Whether you want to call it semantics or not, the people that think that just don't get how the deal went down.

3rd pick, but the point remains. Also, please see the 12 instances in this thread in which I've said that I don't blame Hendry for not taking Hamilton. My sole point is that the OUTRAGE about people supposedly mischaracterizing the failure to get Hamilton as a trade v. a missed pick is silly. As to Krivisky, I don't get your point. Obviously you think Krivsky is a moron. I agree. But grabbing Hamilton was undoubtedly a good move, no? The problem isn't that people innocently mischaracterize it. It's that there are tons of meatheads that think Hendry drafted Hamilton, then on a whim of insanity, traded him to the Reds. It's not semantics when there are people out there that think he actually belonged to the Cubs. Whether Hendry could have drafted him is immaterial, people think he did. You are correct in saying that Hendry could have chosen him, had they not made the deal with the Reds. But people that say "the Cubs traded away Josh Hamilton" don't get the slight differences in there. They actually think the Cubs drafted him then traded him. Whether you want to call it semantics or not, the people that think that just don't get how the deal went down.

Holy crap, please stop. WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN ANY ROAD "AGAIN." Pujols and Fielder are not Soriano, no many times you attempt to compare signing them to signing him. And you never know what any FA will be 6 years after you sign them. You're going to be signing big name FA who are pushing 30 (or past it) unless you develop them internally. Well, the Cubs have absolutely nobody even close to that on the horizon, thus they need to go out and spend. When you sign big names you've got to pay. The key, again, is overpaying for the right guys, and yes, you WILL be overpaying for players like that. Always. And the Cubs are a big market with lots of money to spend, so I don't know why you want them to just automatically not spend money on big contracts unless it's on a player they developed themselves. They have the money to make these kind of signings and SHOULD make them. Yes, I wish the Cubs would develop players like Fielder and Pujols...but they haven't and they won't any time soon. In the meantime they need to sign good FA to go along with more and more players they hopefully develop from within who can be useful everyday players. I actually don't think we're that far apart. I just think we should take our pain for a little while, develop our system, and then re-engage in the free agent market because I think it would result in shorter, relatively lower-cost deals. For one, even if they wait, they won't get any impact players on shorter more cost effective deals. Secondly, if they are able to produce those players occasionally, how do propose to keep them if you are wanting the Cubs to avoid long term, expensive contracts? How will you be able to guarantee that when a Vogelbach, a Baez or a Maples ( all purely examples) are entering their FA years and their prime at the same time, similar to Fielder, that they will earn their long, expensive contract it will take to keep them? One way or another, either resigning your own player or going the FA route, you will have to spend eventually, and yes, a few will end up like Soriano, but others will be worth the money it takes to sign them. But the problem is, you can't possibly know that until you are well into or after the contract term. You seem to be saying you want them to go the small-market route and build from within and use FA to get fringe players to fill sparingly. Sorry, but you can't wait around hoping you produce a Pujols, Bonds, Maddux or Clemens. If you want those types of players, you have to go get them when they are available. Even if the Cubs create the best MiL system in the MLB, they may never produce that kind of player, so how long do you wait? If you are a large-market team, with the ability to have a top 5 payroll, you use everything at your expense to build a good team. Many on here have been saying the Cubs don't have to wait around to develop a winner. They're right. The Cubs have what, $62 mil coming off the books this year? And another $40-42 mil next year? If that isn't enough to fill the holes they have coming up (essentially 3 this year, 3B, RF/CF and 1B), they will NEVER be able to do it. I don't know if they'll be able to win the WS next year, but damn sure should be able to put together a team that can compete for the division or WC. That just seems like a resigned attitude when it comes to developing our own players. These guys come from somewhere. I don't think it's chance. It's great scouting and development. There's no guarantee it will happen that way. There's no guarantees period. I'm glad we've got a lot of money coming off the books. Now let's spend it wisely, not blow it all on a guy who will make us feel better right now, and quite possibly feel terrible years down the road. I don't view this as a small market attitude. I'm not saying we don't spend anything on the FA market. I'm saying there's got to be a way to introduce balance into this equation. And while I see teams like the Yankees & Red Sox winning plenty, I also see it done by teams with a different approach too. They aren't always the ones who win. I don't have a problem with them developing their own players, but when you have a hole, at say 1B, and two of the best players at that position over the last 10 years are both going to be FA when you have that hole, and you have no one at that position coming up through the system, then you do what you can to sign a player like that. It will be next to impossible for the Cubs system to be loaded enough and balanced enough to fill every conceivable hole every year. It just can't happen. You might have a hole at 3B next year, with a guy in the minors that's still 2 years away. Evan Longoria is available now, but it will take a 5 year contract to get him. Are you going to pass up the chance to get him because a guy that might be ready in 2 years is sitting in your system? And instead sign some crappy player for two years, because he's available and needs a job so he's willing to sign for cheap? No, you get the known commodity at the price that it takes to get him over the guy who might not ever make it. Being willing to sign expensive, long term FA when you have the means, are willing and they fill a need doesn't mean you are forsaking the signing and development of good young players. It's the kind of thing an organization with a brain does. A good organization should be able to do both, not one or the other. I'm excited that it appears Ricketts is evidently willing to have Wilken draft the best available players and actually be intent on signing them. I'm thrilled he's wanting them to try to go after the best available Latin and Asian talent. I'm also hoping he'll let whoever is the GM this fall/winter go after the best available FA that fill immediate needs for the team. Ideally, as someone above pointed out, in a few years, this team is made up of mainly guys developed from within, with a couple of key trade acquisitions and a couple of big-name FA sprinkled in. I don't have a problem building from within, but they have to fill holes. And when that hole can be filled by a Pujols or Fielder, that's when you do everything in your power to make it happen. As I said before, and others have said, they should be able to compete, next year. The Cubs, being a major market team with the ability to have a top 5 payroll, should NEVER have to rebuild. They should always have the ability to do one of the following... someone ready to step up from the minors, the players available to trade for a need or the money to sign someone to a 5/$100 mil contract. Period. They should never have to scrap a season before it's played because they don't have the ability to fill needs this year, probably from within. Edit: I should add that the Longoria reference is purely an example. I fully realize he isn't a FA this off-season.

Holy crap, please stop. WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN ANY ROAD "AGAIN." Pujols and Fielder are not Soriano, no many times you attempt to compare signing them to signing him. And you never know what any FA will be 6 years after you sign them. You're going to be signing big name FA who are pushing 30 (or past it) unless you develop them internally. Well, the Cubs have absolutely nobody even close to that on the horizon, thus they need to go out and spend. When you sign big names you've got to pay. The key, again, is overpaying for the right guys, and yes, you WILL be overpaying for players like that. Always. And the Cubs are a big market with lots of money to spend, so I don't know why you want them to just automatically not spend money on big contracts unless it's on a player they developed themselves. They have the money to make these kind of signings and SHOULD make them. Yes, I wish the Cubs would develop players like Fielder and Pujols...but they haven't and they won't any time soon. In the meantime they need to sign good FA to go along with more and more players they hopefully develop from within who can be useful everyday players. I actually don't think we're that far apart. I just think we should take our pain for a little while, develop our system, and then re-engage in the free agent market because I think it would result in shorter, relatively lower-cost deals. For one, even if they wait, they won't get any impact players on shorter more cost effective deals. Secondly, if they are able to produce those players occasionally, how do propose to keep them if you are wanting the Cubs to avoid long term, expensive contracts? How will you be able to guarantee that when a Vogelbach, a Baez or a Maples ( all purely examples) are entering their FA years and their prime at the same time, similar to Fielder, that they will earn their long, expensive contract it will take to keep them? One way or another, either resigning your own player or going the FA route, you will have to spend eventually, and yes, a few will end up like Soriano, but others will be worth the money it takes to sign them. But the problem is, you can't possibly know that until you are well into or after the contract term. You seem to be saying you want them to go the small-market route and build from within and use FA to get fringe players to fill sparingly. Sorry, but you can't wait around hoping you produce a Pujols, Bonds, Maddux or Clemens. If you want those types of players, you have to go get them when they are available. Even if the Cubs create the best MiL system in the MLB, they may never produce that kind of player, so how long do you wait? If you are a large-market team, with the ability to have a top 5 payroll, you use everything at your expense to build a good team. Many on here have been saying the Cubs don't have to wait around to develop a winner. They're right. The Cubs have what, $62 mil coming off the books this year? And another $40-42 mil next year? If that isn't enough to fill the holes they have coming up (essentially 3 this year, 3B, RF/CF and 1B), they will NEVER be able to do it. I don't know if they'll be able to win the WS next year, but damn sure should be able to put together a team that can compete for the division or WC.

Hopefully it's to keep that July BABIP of .424 going. Especially after his horrible May and June.

In all fairness, you'd get that in a lot of places. He sure as hell would in Iowa. There's a reason the B1G protected that rivalry. [expletive] is serious. Word. Honestly, there's really only one team that I would have cared less about in regards to football, and that's Indiana. I would have loved anyone else in that division, Wisky most of all.

I had completely forgotten just how bad Guillen was. For some reason I thought he was a decent player. The funny thing is, he was so bad that I actually believed that .286 career SLG number. It's actually .386....still bad but not epically bad. According to B-R, it's actually .338, with a career OPS of .626.

Even that list has standards.

A guy with no hands could play SS in a gravel pit and not commit 98 errors in 134 games.

He looked directly into the camera in a recent interview and it was very unpleasant. He was just trying to get you off your game, gooney. You know, the little things count.

Bunting is for people who can't hit. Sac bunting is. There's definite merit in bunting for a hit, for certain players. How true. All the great players know how to bunt. According to STATS, Babe Ruth had 113 sacrifice hits and Lou Gehrig had 106 sacrifice hits. They knew the fundamentals and when asked by their manager to lay one down, they did it. I was talking about bunting for a hit, not sac bunting. Sac bunting is very rarely a good idea for anybody, short of the pitcher. I'd bet money that if the 3B coach gave Babe Ruth the sac sign he'd either laugh at the guy or flip him off and swing away. Probably after telling the catcher " hey judge, can you believe that, that idiot wants me to bunt".

This is not true. There is a difference between a 'sacrifice fly', a 'sacrifice bunt' and a 'sacrifice hit'. Two are outs and one is a hit. In 1926, the sacrifice fly rule was changed and in 1931, the individual sacrifice fly stat was wiped out until 1954. So a 'sacrifice hit' was a hit when 'The Babe and 'The Iron Horse' played. No. They both fell under the same category until 1954. You're wrong, and common sense makes that abundantly clear. The sac fly/hit has a really weird history, but the numbers you're desperately hoping show that Ruth and Gehrig bunted a lot simply don't do that. http://research.sabr.org/journals/sacrifice-fly That's the same link I looked at. Oh, BW, run scoring sac flies were reinstated in 1939.

This is not true. There is a difference between a 'sacrifice fly', a 'sacrifice bunt' and a 'sacrifice hit'. Two are outs and one is a hit. In 1926, the sacrifice fly rule was changed and in 1931, the individual sacrifice fly stat was wiped out until 1954. So a 'sacrifice hit' was a hit when 'The Babe and 'The Iron Horse' played. Wrong. At that time (1926) a sacrifice hit combined every time a batter moved runners over and got out. It was not counted as a hit, it wasn't even counted as an AB. In 1931 they eliminated the sac fly from the sac hit catagory, so all they counted was bunts or a situation such as a runner moving from 2B to 3B on a groundout to the 2B. Which explains why Gehrig ranged from 12 to 20+ sacs prior to 1932 and 1-2 each year from 1932 on.

MOST OF THOSE WEREN'T BUNTS. Also a good point. But do you have a link to prove that because you didn't know Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig personally. Outside of common sense, there's no way to "prove" that either player did or didn't have any sac bunts. But, using 1927 as an example, Gehrig had 21 Sacs. As the #4 hitter. Even back then do you really think Miller Huggins had Lou lay down 21 bunts? In a year where he hit .373 with 117 xtra base hits (47 HRs)? Or is it much more likely that he layed down 1-2 and had 19-20 sac flies?

I guess I should have added, in regards to Ruth and Gehrig, their heyday as teammates with the Yankees, 1927-1933, came during a much higher scoring environment then there is this season. 1927 & 1928 both had AL scoring averages of 4.92 and 4.77 rpg, from 1929 through 1933 the AL was over 5 rpg. This year the AL is currently at 4.29, meaning is was even more stupid for Ruth and Gehrig to lay down a bunt than it currently would be, and it would be pretty stupid now to have AGonz, Pujols, Bautista, Votto or any of the other top hitters to lay down a sac bunt.

Bunting is for people who can't hit. Sac bunting is. There's definite merit in bunting for a hit, for certain players. How true. All the great players know how to bunt. According to STATS, Babe Ruth had 113 sacrifice hits and Lou Gehrig had 106 sacrifice hits. They knew the fundamentals and when asked by their manager to lay one down, they did it. They also played in the deadball era when 1 run meant a whole lot more than it does now. Babe Ruth yes, but Gehrig never played in the deadball era, IIRC he was a rookie in 1925. And, not directed at the above quote, N&G is right, most of Ruth and Gehrigs sacs were flies. I'd be shocked if either laid down more than 5 sac bunts in their career.

Because they won, silly. Hadn't thought of anything that simple.

While on the treadmill this morning I noticed that ESPN had a lead-in saying "Small-ball wins the ASG for the NL". Hmm, I thought a 3-run HR from Fielder won the ASG for the NL. How is a power hitter hitting a HR "small-ball"?

For years and years, the Cubs have been an all or nothing team. If they can't hit the long ball, they lose. Plain and simple. How about execution? How about hustle? How about getting them on, getting them over and getting them in? I have seen this team blow more scoring chances that ultimately costs them games because they absolutely REFUSE to do the little things. You don't want Brenly? Fine. I have no problem with him. You haven't even said why you do not like him. But unless you're talking about pitchers not named Zambrano, bunting is stupid in most situations. This team doesn't need to bunt more, they need to not swing at bad pitches, they need to try to work the count and see more pitches instead of going up there and hacking away. The defense needs to have better range and field the ball cleanly then make good throws. In essence, they need better players.

Quade would be fine if they get him better players.