jersey cubs fan

exactly, dumb call maybe but that was lee's fault. Its not Lees fault his manager is a [expletive] moron who sent the runners down 5 damn runs in the 1st freaking inning. I'm not arguing the bad manager decision, but how is it not Lee's fault that he took a fastball right down the middle of the plate? Guys take called third strikes. It's a 3-2 count, a ball is a walk. If he thought it was a ball, he's thinking go to first. They needed baserunners, not 90 feet.

exactly, dumb call maybe but that was lee's fault. If that was a missed sign that's the 2nd on a hit and run in 2 days. Yea but Lee of all people should know to protect on 3-2 count. If he singles you are all calling it a great move. No, it's not great, because you risked an out to move a guy 90 feet while down 5 runs. It's dumb. It's extremely dumb.

exactly, dumb call maybe but that was lee's fault. He could have swung and missed and you got the same result.

Nobody cares about your fantasy team. I really hate fantasy baseball. I love this phrase. Nobody cares, or just you? Lighten up. Nobody cares about someone else's fantasy team. It's not so much about the fantasy team. Just the phrase "nobody cares." Is it really nobody, or just the person saying it who doesn't care? it's nobody

You're making the assumption that they are making the decision to promote him based on his stat line rather than other factors like pitch recognition and fielding. For all we know, Vitters may be sitting on fastballs and they want to force him to hit breaking balls against more advanced pitching. I guess what I'm confused about is you seem to think there is some reason that they're promoting Vitters and that it's not a good one. I just don't understand what would be promoting a player for the wrong reason? What are you implying their motive is? I think their reasoning is flawed, if not idiotic. Motive has nothing to do with it. From low A to high A and high A to AA, they promoted him after a very brief stretch of playing well, as if they were just waiting for an excuse to promote him. I don't get it. I don't get why they can't make the guy earn a promotion through prolonged performance. I can see moving a guy out of short season leagues to get with legit competition, but he's 20, with a spotty track record and huge red flags about his game. Why is he in AA?

I don't see it as a judgement call. Performance is easily observed. Vitters has not been up to snuff. Any time he has a brief window of success, they promote him. I don't see the point. He could be dominating the FSL right now, after dominating the midwest league last year, and a hot commodity in the trade market. Instead he's a guy with a questionable track record that hasn't come close to living up to his draft position whose biggest positives has been a boss who is happy to promote him. Well if you're back to it being substandard performance instead of an inadequate amount of time, I have to ask again. What numbers do you need to see to justify a promotion? It's substandard overall. He's been horrible in AA, he was decent but far from great in A ball. The concensus on Vitters seems to me at least, that his future is very much in doubt. Nobody has a good grip on what he is. He hasn't dominated, and he hasn't been all that good for any stretch of time. It's both numbers and time. 20th in the league in FSL isn't that impressive to me, regardless of what the actual line may have been. If you insist on me providing a true number, than how about something like a 900 OPS in FSL before insisting on promoting him within a month? 6 guys have that right now. 12 are over 850. That seems like a fair line to talk about a guy actually dominating a league and earning a very early promotion. At the very least, something much more substantial than his career .286 .319 .448 he had coming into 2010.

Hockey players are not well spoken. I doubt it, but I wonder if the NFL has any regrets for putting the kibosh on the Bears/Blackhawks commercial. Being tied in with them right now could be a very good thing.

Still the point remains. Even if Soriano is better, those guys didn't get close to 4/40 so it's hard to imagine Soriano would at 34. And it's not like he is that far removed from his struggling. And it's not like he doesn't have a ton of red flags suggesting he will struggle again and probably for the better part of the next 4 years. But those guys aren't particularly good comparisons, so the point is flawed, at least. Jermaine Dye not getting a deal is meaningless when talking about what Soriano could conceivably get now or in the near future. Those guys didn't get it because A) most of them were worse, B) the economy was in doubt, and C) they were coming off bad years. Had Soriano been on the market then he wouldn't have gotten much. But it's 2010 now, the economy is better, Soriano has reestablished himself as a pretty good player (better than those guys). 4/40 is hardly a stretch. I wouldn't give it to him, but unless he takes a dramatic turn for the worse this season, somebody would.

I don't see it as a judgement call. Performance is easily observed. Vitters has not been up to snuff. Any time he has a brief window of success, they promote him. I don't see the point. He could be dominating the FSL right now, after dominating the midwest league last year, and a hot commodity in the trade market. Instead he's a guy with a questionable track record that hasn't come close to living up to his draft position whose biggest positives has been a boss who is happy to promote him.

Don't forget to adjust for the league he's playing in. .328/.365/.498 in Boise (hitters league) .316/.351/.535 in Peoria (significant pitchers league) .291/.350/.445 in Daytona (the best league for pitchers) What numbers do you need to see him put up before you promote him? Significant period of time. When I last looked at his Daytona numbers he was something like 20th, behind a whole bunch of other corner position players, and some middle infielders. That's not dominating a league, and that's not any significant period of time either. I just don't see why he's a 20 year old in AA given his track record. Once a guy hits AA, the calls to bring him to the majors start up. I just think he's so far from being a potential big leaguer, there's no reason why he can't still be in Daytona, slowly climbing the ladder (and that wouldn't even be slow).

I think a lot of this had to do with a scary recession. From winter 2008 through winter 2009 people were scared to death. But those fears have eased. Damon is older than Soriano, and not as good. Dye sucks. Beltre can't hit worth a lick. Matsui isn't as good. Vladdy wasn't as good as Soriano for a the past couple years and coming off a really bad season. Being a free agent last year was not great. Especially if you were struggling. The recession is over and Soriano isn't struggling, so his chances are much better.

I think 2-3 years would give him more than $10m per, while the 4th year would bring it down considerably. Then again, if he craps the bed again, maybe not.

I'm not sure why it "should" cause him to raise an eyebrow. And since it's not justified, I think he "shouldn't" do it. But since it's about competing for free agents, I see why he'd do it.

time to make the donuts

He was putting up comparable HR, RBI (better), OPS (4th best of his career) and SB numbers in almost 30 fewer games. And his career hasn't been nearly as good as his reputation suggests. It wasn't nearly as good as his reputation suggested in '06-'07 offseason either, but you can bet he'd have pulled in 120M Jim Hendry or no Jim Hendry. Sure, but I'm not the one saying he couldn't get 4/40 right now.

What was the other lackluster season? Yeah, I'm wondering that myself. Soriano was easily worth his contract and then in some in 2007 and 2008. 2007, yes. 2008, that's debatable. He played well, but not great, for 100 games. He was putting up comparable HR, RBI (better), OPS (4th best of his career) and SB numbers in almost 30 fewer games. And his career hasn't been nearly as good as his reputation suggests.

He's not really concerned with that though, right? He's just trying to badmouth the Bulls since he's essentially competing with them for free agent help.

What was the other lackluster season? Both years in Texas were lackluster. He said without Jaramillo, which was a really odd qualifier, since he was bad in Texas. Also, that was 5 and 6 years ago. Does anybody believe those #s would come into play if Soriano was a free agent?? Sure, I would think the career arc of a 34 year old would come into play if Soriano was a free agent. If somebody is thinking of signing him to a 4 year contract today, they would probably think about more than just what he did in 2007 and 2008.

What was the other lackluster season? Yeah, I'm wondering that myself. Soriano was easily worth his contract and then in some in 2007 and 2008. 2007, yes. 2008, that's debatable. He played well, but not great, for 100 games.

What was the other lackluster season? Both years in Texas were lackluster.

Stevens has been up for 10 days and has 2 innings, I'm not sure how much more stable he's made the bullpen. If anything, the really long outings by a few starters has stabilized things. But with Grabow and Howry right in the middle of things, instability remains.

Okay, but he's Lou and that's not going to happen.

But why? His situation is clearly different than those you (or others) listed earlier. They guy barely has any experience as a starter and needs to get the innings. If he ends up in the bullpen for the rest of this season, they are limiting how much they can get from him next season, no? It's not like the Cubs are a dominant set-up man away from contending this year. Even one believes they are, (as you said) there are plenty of other options. It's definitely going to be affected. What the longterm effect is going to be is questionable. If sidetracked means ruined, than no, it's probably not. But if it means it's going to be more difficult for him to ever turn into a 100+ pitch ~7 inning pitcher, and at the very least take longer to get there, than I have no idea how somebody can question that. He's not an established starting pitcher who is taking a minor detour.

I don't really think it's a sudden reversal. They've been saying they weren't going to move him, but that doesn't ensure they meant it. The bullpen hasn't been that good. Marmol and Marshall have solidified things when starters go 7 innings. But Grabow still sucks. And they went out and signed a completely worthless Howry. I'm not sure how the bullpen is any more solidified now. And there's no way of knowing how the next guy is going to do. The bullpen has been a question from day one and remains so. Cashner has been an obvious candidate to fill a role from day one. The Cubs were probably just looking for the right time. Now he's go a fair amount of 2010 inning, almost of which have been dominant. They need to win to save jobs, it's almost June and the team is still under .500. I'm not confused about the timing at all. It's been the obvious move. What I don't get is the supposed test of letting them relieve for a couple weeks in AAA and then sending them back to the rotation.

I don't get it.