jersey cubs fan

Well, minor league records don't matter, so it shouldn't be how anybody rates a minor league manager. But aren't the Tenn Smokies the Cubs AA team? How do they have "a lot of talent"? Fox Craig Colvin Samardzija Holliman Veal Clevenger There are a lot of high round draft picks there. I think one has to measure talent by the level of competition. They were only high draft picks because the Cubs drafted them. The Cubs are clearly in the bottom half of minor league talent, so I'm not sure how somebody could think they have a lot of talent in AA. Physical ability maybe, but baseball talent? Not so much. I can't blame a manager for Tyler Colvin's weak numbers or Samardzija's incompetency. The other guys are fairly marginal as far as I can tell.

I'm not much of a college basketball fan so I cannot comment on the Coleman Beasley thing, however low graduation rates are somewhat of a red herring. When I was at OSU the graduation rate (within 4 years) for ALL undergrads averaged around 35%-45%. At most of these big schools graduation rates for all undergraduates is pretty poor. Graduation rates are always going to be worse because many times the athletes come to college unprepared to succeed at college. I know some of the people who work with the athletes at the University of Memphis, and they are working hard with the athletes even before the athletes formally take classes. I think it is a bit unfair to make blanket statements about programs. But it's not unfair to pick on the outliers, which, I believe Huggins' programs have always been. I don't disagree, but I'd like to know what the overall graduation rate at Cin. was when Huggins was there. Rose is a good kid and has worked hard in school even though everyone knew he was only staying for one year. If I'm the Bulls, I draft him. On the last point I have no idea one way or the other who is a better fit. From the sounds of things I would think they'd be better off with getting Rose and trading some of their guards, but I know very little about basketball. I remember the past couple years all the talk of needing big scorers. The biggest thing keeping them from success was the foolish attempt to try and win as a team without a star, because it was clear they had no stars.

At this point, turning 24 in a couple years, it would be very difficult for them to transition him to pitcher and still get any value out of it, right? It's going to take a couple years before he's even going to have a chance at the majors, at which point some other team, likely a non-contender, would probably have more incentive to take a flyer on him.

Well, minor league records don't matter, so it shouldn't be how anybody rates a minor league manager. But aren't the Tenn Smokies the Cubs AA team? How do they have "a lot of talent"?

Hall will always be a favorite. I got my first, and only, foul ball off his bat.

I'm not much of a college basketball fan so I cannot comment on the Coleman Beasley thing, however low graduation rates are somewhat of a red herring. When I was at OSU the graduation rate (within 4 years) for ALL undergrads averaged around 35%-45%. At most of these big schools graduation rates for all undergraduates is pretty poor. Graduation rates are always going to be worse because many times the athletes come to college unprepared to succeed at college. I know some of the people who work with the athletes at the University of Memphis, and they are working hard with the athletes even before the athletes formally take classes. I think it is a bit unfair to make blanket statements about programs. But it's not unfair to pick on the outliers, which, I believe Huggins' programs have always been.

maddux, glavine, and johnson are 100% 1st ballot no question. the other 3 probably get in a year or 2 later. though it's a crime if any of them (with the possible exception of schilling) don't make it right away. I don't see how Glavine ranks ahead of the others. He's not in Maddux's or the Unit's class. i agree. but 300 wins = first ballot in the minds of sportswriters. If that's the case, then sportswriters are very narrow-minded. Don't they realize that a pitcher's W/L record is mostly out of their control? Generally speaking it's going to even out over the course of a guy's career. I completely agree on not judging how good a player is over a single season by how many wins he got but if a player gets or approaches 300 wins, in this day and age, he's at least a good pitcher. You don't luck into getting 15-20 wins per year for 15+ years. One or two years, sure, but not for a career. Obviously there are better measures for evaluating how good a pitcher was but with 250-300 wins, I don't think you can just dismiss that like you can for a single season. What if he loses 290? It's just a pet peeve of mine that not only do people overemphasize W/L record, but they always refer to pitchers by how many wins they are capable of in a season, while ignoring the losses. A 15 game winner is a 15 game winner whether he went 15-16 or 15-6. A record of 16-14 is given more respect than somebody who only wins 11 but goes 11-3. It makes no sense.

I read something that said he was kicked out of a bunch of schools, yet only committed "minor" indiscretions like slashing car tires, graffiti and putting a dead rat on a teachers desk. Okay, so he didn't rape anybody, good for him, but that's some serious signs of one screwed up prick. That was in high school. He had NO incidents at KSU. Starting to think he's grown up quite a bit. Who doesn't screw around like that in high school? It's better than the alternative of gangs, drugs, booze etc..... He's never gotten in trouble with the law. He was a practical joker. As Frank Martin said, if those are the only issues you have to deal with with a kid, then I'll take those kind of issues ANY time. How long was he in KSU? Who doesn't screw around like that in high school? Most people. Graffiti isn't much of anything, but slashing tires, dead rats in teacher's desks, and getting kicked out of multiple schools? Those are not practical jokes. That's a prick with no regard for other humans. Give that person millions of dollars and you are most likely going to see more problems.

You are weird.

I read something that said he was kicked out of a bunch of schools, yet only committed "minor" indiscretions like slashing car tires, graffiti and putting a dead rat on a teachers desk. Okay, so he didn't rape anybody, good for him, but that's some serious signs of one screwed up prick.

Doubts? Everyone had doubts! Yet, when I check out other sites, I don't see anything close to resembling the same overreaction for other underperforming prospects from that draft. It's been less than a year. It's ludicrous to label this guy a bust. It's ludicrous to rip on the guy non-stop without giving him a chance. People here need to take a step back and stop going nuts over this guy. It's ridiculous to claim people are ripping on him non-stop. And yes, there were large doubts, including, I believe, a weak season before the draft. Top picks that high should not have such red flags as, "well, he wasn't any good this year but he was hurt/sick so it doesn't count". Or if that is the red flag, the rest of the portfolio better be outstanding.

The reasons people give for being against instant replay are mind boggling.

Supposedly power potential type guy with questionable contact skills and hasn't hit at any level at all. He looks like a poor man's Ryan Harvey Coming into his draft, Harvey's power potential was freakish. It was easy to imagine him hitting 40+ HRs at his peak. He had a long swing coming out and his ability to draw walks and overall plate discipline had lingering questions. He was also supposed to be a five tool guy. Coming into his draft, Vitters' power potential was lower (likely a 30 HR guy at his peak). Vitters also had very good plate discipline, a terrific right handed swing, and a good ability to make contact. Vitters' defense and speed were not at Harvey's level. Comparing the two like that is a bit of a head-scratcher, especially considering Vitters' age and lack of experience. Injuries have held the guy back. We don't have very much to go on statistically speaking. Frankly, I think there maybe are about 3 or 4 people total on this board who have seen Vitters in person and can give us a good picture of what he is capable of. With such a small sample size, that's the best we can ask at this point. It's one thing to dislike Vitters because you wanted Porcello or Wieters in the draft. That's understandable. It's another thing altogether to hate the guy because of what he's done since being drafted. That's just ludicrous. There were doubts before the draft and a year later there's been nothing resembling good news on him, what's so ludicrous?

That would be a ridiculous deal for the Bulls. That's about what Hinrich is worth, but getting him outta him would be much more valuable. How is it ridiculous if that's about what he's worth? If you're going to dump him for Rose anyway, I find an extra mid-first round pick to be entirely palatable. I'm pretty sure he meant ridiculous in a good way. He's worth the 13th pick in the draft? The 13th pick must be pretty useless.

With the Cubs offday today, the next time Gallagher's spot comes up will coincide with Marshall's regular rest. If he can go an effective 5+ today, I would think they'd strongly consider going to him next. I'd still like to see them experiment with the duel starter thing, let Gallagher and Marshall go 3-4 each in the same game, see how that works. The problem for each seems to be the 2nd/3rd time through, and endurance. That's actually not a bad idea. Marshall's OPS against went up about 300 points after 75 pitches last year. He averaged under 5 1/3 innings per start. I do admit though, I hate the idea of being locked into a set routine before the game even unfolds. On one hand, it could be an extra day off for your bullpen. On the other, you let the other team know what's coming and when. You don't know on a given day if Marshall or Gallagher can go 7 strong. You don't have to make it a set time, and if a guy is cruising, you can choose to stick with him. Depending on the lineup (lots of lefties early, or RH dominant) you can choose which one to actually start, and then let him go as long as he's shutting them down. Of course this isn't condusive to "letting a guy learn how to get out of jams", but I think it's a decent idea to try and get young pitchers adjusted to the game. Eventually one of them may prove to be better going longer, and you can adjust. It doesn't have to be a season long thing.

2-1 when Gallagher starts. Am I missing something here? I realize his performance doesn't necessarily dictate a 2-1 record, but he's far from causing the Cubs to concede games. Am I missing something here? Gallagher has started for a total of 10 innings and given up 10 runs in those innings. Granted, I'd still rather have him out there than Marquis, but Gallagher hasn't impressed me in the least thus far (and I was very excited to see him in the rotation). That's my point. "Conceding games" was a bad choice of words, but I would not assume it is best for Marshall to replace Marquis versus Gallagher. It wasn't a bad choice of words, it was a ridiculous statement. No, he hasn't been good, needs to be better, and should probably be replaced by Marshall next time out.

Give this post a standing ovation until your hands bleed. After his 10AB-small-sample-size-batting-rampage he went 5/25 with 11 K's until he was sent down. He struck out 4/6 AB's immediately following this 10AB-batting-rampage-miracle-turnaround. =D> spread out over how much time?

maddux, glavine, and johnson are 100% 1st ballot no question. the other 3 probably get in a year or 2 later. though it's a crime if any of them (with the possible exception of schilling) don't make it right away. I don't see how Glavine ranks ahead of the others. He's not in Maddux's or the Unit's class. i agree. but 300 wins = first ballot in the minds of sportswriters. 300 wins = auto-induction, it doesn't = first ballot. Yeah, that's my point. The voters have a thing for making guys wait. I think they will put in Maddux first ballot no doubt. I also think Johnson will get that honor. It's possible they could give most of those guys first ballot treatment, but I feel there will be enough writers who want to give Maddux his due by making his ATL teammates wait.

He did not, did he?

Not sure if your joking there, but I wonder if Hoff could do RF. I believe that may be the most likely next step. Pie's slow start at AAA isn't going to win him any early release from the doghouse. If Edmonds continues to suck, I could see them giving Fukudome some time in center in a couple weeks with Hoff getting some time in right. Murton and Patterson are both doing good down there, as is 43 year old "prospect" Andres Torres. I'm not sure if they think of Patterson as a CF or not, Murton is RH and a corner guy. With Hoff here now, and with his first start a success, I am going to assume he impressed Lou enough to be given first dibs at the LH bat that will protect Ramirez duty.

Great against Berkman. I watched the first part on fast forward and it looked to me like he was getting ahead early, but leaving stuff over the plate way too frequently. this is what happened on the HR to Lee...left one up and over the plate on an 0-2 count...ballgame. He struckout Berkman on a changeup right down the middle thigh high.

Ronny is doing a horrible job making sure Theriot doesn't make outs on the basepaths.

Concede games?

With the Cubs offday today, the next time Gallagher's spot comes up will coincide with Marshall's regular rest. If he can go an effective 5+ today, I would think they'd strongly consider going to him next. I'd still like to see them experiment with the duel starter thing, let Gallagher and Marshall go 3-4 each in the same game, see how that works. The problem for each seems to be the 2nd/3rd time through, and endurance.

Great against Berkman. I watched the first part on fast forward and it looked to me like he was getting ahead early, but leaving stuff over the plate way too frequently.