jersey cubs fan

Really? 30 year old Antonio Alfonseca threw 74 1/3 inning for the 2000 Chicago Cubs with a 4.00 ERA, 1.466 WHIP, 61 K, 36 BB and allowed 5 HR. Kevin Gregg is much better than that? Gregg is essentially what Alfonseca was before coming to the Cubs. A wholly unimpressive relief pitcher who had the fortune of being used at the end of games for the Marlins, thus earning the tag "proven closer" and therefore being a justifiable choice to finish games for the Cubs. Mel Rojas was actually a bit more effective reliever earlier in his career who had one partial season with the Cubs that was fairly similar to what Kevin Gregg has done in his partial season with the Cubs. Kevin Gregg is not "much better" than either guy, he might not even be any better. And if either guy is an indication, his unimpressive career is likely going to be imploding soon.

Why? The difference is back then they did it and nobody cared. You didn't "rat out" your fellow players and the media didn't touch the subject. One guy wrote a book and was ostracized, with the help of the media. They pretended it was milk and vitamins and living right. But they took what they could get if they thought it would help. And no, there's not a lot of speculation in assuming they would have taken it if they had access and thought it would help. That's just how sports works. Always have, always will.

I partially agree that Hendry has nobody to blame but himself for how he has committed a generous payroll. At the same time, I can't blame him for committing all his available resources up front. If the Cubs' budget is run anything like other corporations, unspent dollars are often removed from the budget altogether. Maybe he felt that if he didn't spend the money, he was going to lose it anyway. Yes, if he was given a $105m budget in 2007 it woulddn't have made sense to only spend $80m, but that doesn't mean he had to commit future dollars. Hendry operated under the assumption that he had to win in 07/08 to remain employed past that point.

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another. why? one gives the player a MUCH, MUCH bigger advantage. do people really not think there's a difference? How much more of an advantage did they have when so many others were using the same thing? And again, the only reason for that is because baseball people finally realized muscles weren't bad and the stuff got better. Those who cheated with what illegal substance they had access to and thought could help them would have used this stuff if they had access to it.

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another. In 20-30 years the steroids people took in the 90s/00s are going to be considered quaint novelties from a bygone era.

What a giant load of crap. Like those previous guys were anything special? They're freaking baseball players that put up good numbers. The vast majority were probably unethical jerks and complete morons.

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? They may improve it as a significantly greater clip, but if so it's because of a science, not an erosion of players character or anything. If they knew in the 70's what players in the 90's knew, and had access to the same stuff, they would have taken. Hell, it's all but a guarantee some of them at least experimented with the less evolved roids back then. The biggest difference is baseball people are so stupid they were convinved muscles were bad for a long time. But I'm not even sure steroids improve players at a significantly greater clip than greenies. The toll of 162 games over 6 months is real and those guys took all that crap for a reason, they felt they needed it. It's still using chemistry to improve your performance, the only difference is advancements in chemistry.

Raw I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think there is much, if any benefit of having your RB be a 2nd year guy instead of a rookie. If anything, it just means more wear and tear on the body. Rookie RBs can produce out of the gate because it is such a physical/instinctive position, and not really a tactical position, like QB and WR. Frankly, after all the touches he had in college and his rookie year, I'm concerned about Forte's future. He was a sub 4.0ypc guy last year and doesn't have the "liveliest" of legs. He could improve on those numbers this year simply because of Cutler's presence, but I don't think it's a matter of becoming "established" as a veteran or anything. It's really not all that tough. In fact, since Vick won up there in the playoffs, I think a lot of the myth of Lambau has eroded. GB lost 4 times up there, all against warm weather/dome teams. Of course they lost to the Bears at home the previous season, and as favorites in the playoffs against the Giants. The previous year they lost again to the Bears, and two more dome teams, NE and the Jets. I have no more concern about playing in GB as I would playing in Carolina or Cleveland. The two in division domes are where I have concerns about the Bears playing. Luckily Detroit stinks so the disadvantage of playing in the dome is minimized. As for the rest, I really don't like facing Pittsburgh coming off a half bye. They play on Thursday and then get 9 days rest before coming to Chicago. Cutler's first home game against that defense on plenty of rest just bothers me. Seattle's home advantage could be real, but they only won twice there last year and much of the respect they get is residual from when they won multiple division titles against non-existent competition.

Do you disagree? I do. All sorts of players have bent rules, including taking illegal substances, to gain an edge, throughout history and many of them are in the HOF.

I don't want to know in what form he took that testosterone.

He was one of the late round guys who intrigued me. Lots of great tools and physical gifts, but not much in the way of production. I'm all in favor of those kinds of guys at that point in the draft. 'Round 23: Jeff Pruitt, OF, Cal State Northridge Quote: "Outfielder Jeff Pruitt has a pro body at 6-foot-5, 210 pounds, with plus tools in his arm strength, speed (6.5 seconds in the 60) and defense. A redshirt sophomore, Pruitt has not hit enough to get scouts that interested, batting .212 this season and striking out 53 times in 179 at-bats." BA ranks him the 109th best prospect in California.' IIRC, Pruitt, who is a full college 21 years old, had like 2 HR and 1 stolen base or something to go with his .211 average. As a soph, he hit better, bashing it out at .254, although he didn't have a single extra base hit, and still stole only 5 bases. Prediction: as nice as BA may say his speed and defense may be, and as statuesque as his body may be, my prediction is that he was not drafted to be a position player. The first plus tool mentioned was his "arm strength". I predict that Wilken actually drafted him and signed him to pitch, not to play. At least, I hope so. Hard to imagine a .211-hitting singles hitter who K's 1/3 of the time in college being very draftable as an outfielder. Yeah, I would hope they are trying to teach this guy who to throw strikes rather than trying to teach him how to make contact with the bat on the ball.

Three guys does not equal a top heavy rotation. And just about every bullpen is top heavy in the back end. But Detroit has 7 guys with 20+ IP and an ERA over 100. How is this a particularly top heavy staff in comparison to other AL pitching staffs?

Detroit has the 3rd best ERA and 4th best OPS against in the AL, Cleveland as the worst ERA and second worst OPS against.

I realize I used OPS (though I did put a little disclaimer in there) but having a bright line rule there would be dumb. You can't play a younger player over a veteran b/c the veteran's crappy OPS is better than the young guy's crappy OPS? You can't play a guy with a slightly worse OPS but is a better overall offensive player or much better defender? Even if we don't use OPS, how can you clearly know that one player will be better than the other? How do you know one decision is better, overall, for the team? No one had a gun to Magglio's head and made him sign a deal that included those vesting clauses. He took a risk that he'd keep playing well enough to reach them. This is also true. I just always tend to side with the player if he is trying to play and there is really no better option in house. If the player sucks why punish a team for trying to get better? There's already way too much of a reliance on the "proven veteran" in baseball. Teams are almost always too slow to get rid of a guy. If a proven well compensated veteran isn't helping the team there's no reason why a team can't bench him even if it means taking a short-term hit in production while building to the future.

The likelihood of Hart throwing 2-3 scoreless innings was pretty low. I do agree that it was a bit risky to leave Demp in because of health questions, but the chances of a run or runs scoring in that situation were fairly high no matter which decision Lou made. Hart was brought up to eat innings, but not in the late innings of a 1-run game. As gassed as Dempster was, the better choice likely would have been to pull him and get an extra inning out of Hart, but runs were likely to score no matter which decision Lou made. So be it. You were already down on the road, so 3 innings was not a guarantee. Hart was going to pitch, regardless. He's a starter, used to pitching multiple innings. The point is you were prepared to lose the battle while trying to win the war, then all of a sudden you foolishly throw your starting pitcher another inning because you just can't risk the guy you brought up specifically to pitch in relief of a taxed bullpen to throw 2 innings? It's nonsensical.

I thought he was part of the Madoff scam. Yeah it really sucks. I remembered he was part of the Stanford thing. Madoff was a lot of elderly and Jewish people, Stanford had a lot of athletes. But I thought Eyre's accounts were frozen in the investigation, but he actually had a good portion of that money still.

Yeah, I don't see the need for new threads all the time. Nor do I see myself bothering to check different forums. There are individual Bears games threads, offseason, training camp, etc. I'd prefer it centered from here, whether it stays in social or goes to a new Chicago sports teams section.

And the point is that is still a stupid decision. Dempster wasn't great. He wiggled out of a few jams in the middle innings, obviously working his tail off in rough conditions. I can see the point. Neither route was a good one, but you likely are correct. I can understand both sides in this, though. No, the good decision was taking your starter out and allowing the guy you called up specifically to eat some innings for the bullpen to pitch. Leaving Dempster in when he was clearly gassed and not really all that great anyway was a bad decision. If you are willing to start backup position players and have your better relievers unavailable, you are admitting that it is more important to win the war than any one battle. It is then stupid to try and overextend a starting pitcher (a highly compensated one with a longterm guaranteed contract, injury history and a lack of history of consistent quality 200 IP seasons) who was clearly gassed just to avoid using the guys you specifically brought up for short-term help in the bullpen. Hart was going to pitch.

When's the last time that Hart pitched in Iowa prior to being called up? He was scheduled to start the day he came up, so presumably it was 5 days before Sunday, or last Tuesday. edit: http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Kevin%20Hart&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453954 Yes, it was Tuesday June 16, when he threw 6 innings of 6 hit 1 run ball, with 7k/3bb.

He obviously wasn't going to pitch a complete game, and multiple bullpen arms were unavailable. So either way you were going to have to live with Hart pitching, whether it was a close deficit, large deficit or even if they took the lead. Being afraid of using Hart in a close game is just a horrible defense for extending Dempter. He was going to pitch regardless.

And the point is that is still a stupid decision. Dempster wasn't great. He wiggled out of a few jams in the middle innings, obviously working his tail off in rough conditions.

They are obviously justified in benching the guy. Nobody is guaranteed playing time, nor should they be. I think playing time options are a good idea. It's up to the player to negotiate reachable clauses, and perform well enough to make it difficult for the team to justify benching him. Teams have to be able to adjust to changing situations. If they sign a 7-year guaranteed contract they are on the hook for 7 years, but if they negotiate options it is in their best interest to make sure that option is "achieved" properly. If a guy isn't likely to make that same money on the free agent market if the option is not picked up due to a reduced level of performance, it's hard to criticize them for acting responsibly by making it less likely that it is picked up.

MLB probably thinks it's a good thing to keep the Cubs payroll stagnant. But in reality these negotiations have not held the payroll hostage. It's risen steadily since it was announced they were up for sale. It's Hendry's fault for committing the 2009/2010 dollars that he committed if he feels held hostage at this point. Why, its in their best interest just to have the Cubs in the playoffs. Keep prices down.

Haha, love the guy pointing at Wells with a look on his face saying "You the man!" Is that what that look is? I thought it was more like a "Hey, there's the nacho guy" look and the guy next to him saying, "hey man, 2 nachos right here."

Yes, that's true. The problem lies in the fact that even when you take their career splits vs. left handers you're dealing with numbers that are small enough that's not a good idea to draw any statistical inferences from them. Reed has a 1000 career PA against LHP, that's plenty of proof to suggest he's pretty good at it. And while I don't have the evidence, Kosuke should have plenty of career PA against lefties between Japan and MLB. It's probably a safe bet to say Reed hits them better than Kosuke.