MSG T

Well, what you are implying about pitchers back then and their rubber arms is a bit exaggerated. I think their innings pitched is often times higher than modern pitchers because relievers weren't used as much back then. As a starting pitcher back then, you were generally expected to try and pitch a complete game, win or lose. This actually isn't an idea that is too far away from where we are now. For example, the most complete games last year was 7; in 1998 it was 15; in 1988 it was 15; in 1978 it was 23, and in 1968 it was 30! Let's look at some of the great pitchers throughout history based on their 162 game averages: Cy Young (1890-1911): 32 games started, 290 IP Christy Mathewson (1900-1916): 31 GS, 274 IP Mordecai Brown (1903-1916): 27 GS, 265 IP Walter Johnson (1907-1927): 30 GS, 273 IP Pete Alexander (1911-1930): 31 GS, 272 IP Lefty Grove (1925-1941): 28 GS, 249 IP Carl Hubbell (1928-1943): 30 GS, 252 IP Dizzy Dean (1930-1947): 28 GS, 244 IP Bob Feller (1936-1956): 31 GS, 246 IP Warren Spahn (1942-1965): 31 GS, 251 IP Whitey Ford (1950-1967): 31 GS, 230 IP Bob Gibson (1959-1975): 32 GS, 261 IP Juan Marichal (1960-1975): 33 GS, 257 IP Ferguson Jenkins (1965-1983): 32 GS, 243 IP Nolan Ryan (1966-1993): 33 GS, 231 IP Tom Seaver (1967-1986): 33 GS, 249 IP Jim Palmer (1965-1984): 32 GS, 248 IP Steve Carlton (1965-1988): 33 GS, 244 IP Roger Clemens (1984-2007): 33 GS, 236 IP Greg Maddux (1986-2008): 33 GS, 230 IP Randy Johnson (1988-2008): 33 GS, 233 IP Pedro Martinez (1992-2008): 31 GS, 218 IP some modern guys: Zambrano: 32 GS, 214 IP Halladay: 32 GS, 228 IP Oswalt: 33 GS, 223 IP Santana: 28 GS, 210 IP The basic games started and innings pitched really hasn't changed all that much throughout history. Just wondering, OMC, are you figuring these on todays 5-man rotation, but using their average innings per start? I only ask because I just looked up Christy Mathewson's stats and I'm seeing an awful lot of 40+ games started and 360 innings pitched. And they only played 154 games then. Btw, just my opinion, but a great hitter 80 years ago would be a great hitter today, assuming they weren't stepping straight out of the time machine, and actually grew up playing in todays game. Williams, Ruth, Gehrig and the other greats of the day, would still end up being great hitters. Maybe they wouldn't have the seasons of .406, or 60 HR's, or 221 OPS+, but they would still be some of the games best hitters.

Limiting Z and Dempster to once every six days is why you don't use a 6 man, but if Harden starts to have a fragile arm it wouldn't be a bad strategy, imo. Couldn't you have Z and Dempster pitch on their normal days and rotate the other 4 guys throught the 3 other spots. Z Demp Harden Lilly Marshall Z Demp Marquis Harden Lilly Z Demp Marshall Marquis Harden Z Demp Lilly Marshall Marquis Something like that. Keep Z and Demp every 5th day, and get the other guys in where you can. Try to keep Harden every 6th day or so. Either that or keep Harden every 5th day and limit his number of pitches( my preference), say 95-100. Let the other three rotate in the other two spots. Or, another thought, probably stupid, but, plan on Harden every fifth day and just use Marquis to come in around the 6th or 7th to replace him? Go with a normal 5 man with Marshall and Lilly. Just spitballing with all of that. Also, what to do if Hill comes back and they haven't made another deal, preferably involving Marquis?

I suspect turning that prospect around in a deal for a top starter will net more value than Murton. Any top starter available will probably be from a team that isn't contending (Oak is always in a different category). If a team is looking to next year and beyond, Murton doesn't do anything for them. The contending Rays, on the other hand, just might pay up for a corner outfield who can put up a .940 OPS in August and September.[/b i thought we were talking about murton Over the last three years Murton has an .865 OPS in August and .977 OPS in SEP in just over 400 PA's.

I was wondering the same thing, only with Harden. Cedeno+ 1-2 others for Burnett. Then maybe a 3-way( involving TB/Murton?) for Harden. They might risk losing both after the season, if I saw Harden's contract right, but would it be worth it? It might be outrageously wishful thinking, mainly because I have no idea what it would take to get Harden, or Hudson for that matter, but it would be nice to end this drought. Don't get me wrong, I'd love Hudson also, just hadn't considered anything for him in addition to Burnett. Z Dempster Lilly Burnett Harden/Hudson ( these are not it order by any means, just how I typed them out) That would be very, very sexy.

They didn't list anyone who wasn't eligible for arbitration yet.

I was particularly fond of one name on the overpaid list... Derek Jeter

And again, if you look at their actual stats, they don't have the better closer.

I know I'll catch hell from at least a few people, but I'd do two things: 1.Do what I could, without being ridiculous( ex. a 3 1/2 month $20mil contract), to sign Barry Bonds. He could play left while Soriano is out, then be a 4th OF/PH/DH for the rest of the year, occasionally making up a Bonds/Soriano/Fukudome OF. Even with limited use, the numbers he could put up would make this lineup incredible. 2. Make the best offer I could for CC, if that didn't work go after AJ. Even with his struggles this year Sabathia is a very good pitcher that would be outstanding to match up with Z as a 1/2 combination. If he could be locked up long term, great, if not oh well, he's still the best available( that we know of), and could go a long, long ways towards getting a WS.

Fridays game is now postponed, and the way they were talking they wouldn't play here all weekend, but I haven't heard anything definite about Sat or Sun yet. http://iowa.cubs.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080613&content_id=416398&vkey=pr_t451&fext=.jsp&sid=t451

He played on the Cuban National Team when he was 15 or 16. He's pretty damn good. Doesn't 15 or 16 years old equal 34 in the US?

Amen. If it does, I'll be at PP tonight watching the I-Cubs.

Pie needs AB's that he will not get up here. Edmonds is very low risk mediocre reward. I hate the guy but he is better than Pie right now. Pie can come back up in September. First, welcome to the forum! Second, Pie is much better than Edmonds, right now.

Who would try to stop him? Umpire: You can't walk, it's T-ball. Geo: Yes I can. Ump: OK. Take your base.

Why did I start laughing when I saw this?

I've been to 3 or 4 of their weekday matinees since they started doing them. It's nice to eat lunch while watching a game, especially if it's 68 and sunny. Plenty o' good seats for them too.

nobody's dumb enough to do that OK, how about an actual living, breathing person for Steve Trachsel?

there's a nice shot of the capitol building over the center field wall that looks gorgeous when it glows during night games I'm not sure how to post pics, but there's a pic here that shows the Capitol, look under the fireworks. http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/ballpark/page.jsp?ymd=20060112&content_id=37951&vkey=ballpark_t451&fext=.jsp&sid=t451

If your other game is a Fri night game, there will be a good fireworks show after the game. In addition to the other places mentioned, I'd highly suggest Barrata's. It's an Italian place on the S. side, about a five minute drive from PP( I still call it Sec Taylor stadium). Also, if you haven't made hotel reservations, there are a few downtown that are reasonable, compared to Chicago, and 4-5 of them are most likely walking distance from PP, 10-15 blocks. Definately check out Court Ave( you'll have to go by to get to the stadium), lots to do during the summer. Also Clive After Five( in one of the suburbs) has plenty to do, bands, food, refreshments. If you like gambling, Prarie Meadows has horses and a Casino, and is 15 minutes from downtown. Like was mentioned earlier, Des Moines get's a bad rap, but it's a pretty nice small-medium sized city, and there is plenty to do if you look in the right places.

I just had to get one more post in while I can. Carry on.

What do the Cubs need? Well, the Tigers have two guys that could fill the Cubs most glaring hole.

The Tigers just traded for Renteria this offseason, giving up two intriguing prospects (Jurgens, and Hernandez), so IMO the Tigers are not even considering trading Renteria. Not to mention they don't have anybody to replace Renteria at SS if they trade him (and remember they traded for Renteria so that they COULD move Guillen off of SS and onto 1B). So I seriously doubt the Tigers would be interested in trading Renteria for Marmo, unless they knew they had another deal for a starting SS in place. I said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't see the Tigers and the Cubs as a match, because Detroit doesn't have what the Cubs need. Oh, I agree that I don't see them moving him, but going with the rest of the thread, I was just wondering what everyone's opinion, particularly those who know way more than I do, on what they'd be willing to give up for him. Considering he'd fill a need way more than the person talked about in the thread that won't die. I just wish Jim had inquired about Renteria BEFORE the Tigers got a hold of him.

Would anyone send the pieces reported for Roberts( Gallagher, Cedeno, Ceda, Veal) to Detroit for Renteria? Substituting Marmol for Gallagher.

RF is going to be kinda crowded with Murton and Fukudome both there, isn't it? :D Edit: Did you change that, or can I not read?

It's pretty amazing how everybody just assumes he's been horrible, especially in comparison with other commissioners. There's quite a gulf between assuming someone is horrible and saying they're the best ever. Yes, but my point is it's amazing how blindly people follow the assumption that Selig has been horrible. Most everybody says he's horrible and then they offer no good reason why. And quite frankly, given the history of the position, I'm not sure there's anybody who has clearly been better. But just because he very well could be one of the best ever, doesn't necessarily mean he's not horrible, it just means most of them had a suckitude rating that boggles the mind.

that's how it should be worn!! While the high socks and rolled pants look 100x's better, I always hated how they felt. We had to wear those for most of my HS years, then went to the long pants my SR year. The long pants were way more comfortable.