jersey cubs fan

Well, there's an idea. Jim should get on that one right away. I would be in favor.

Are they just directly controlled by the Cubs themselves? It would make sense as the rookie league team where they send almost everybody at one time or another and they play where the team trains, correct? My understanding is virtually nobody goes to Mesa games, whereas the rest of the minor league affiliates are all money making ventures that rely on crowds.

If I'm trading Marmol, I want something more than another reliever who is going to cost $40-50 million next year.

I think they need a RH bat. Assuming Murton is dealt or somehow starting with Fukudome in center, they will have no RH bat on the bench. Blanco will be there, but he's not a bat. If Cedeno or Theriot is the backup, that's not a legit bat. Ward at least provides one legit bench bat from the left. If Murton is gone, they won't have any RH bat. I'm sure they hope DeRosa will be that guy. He's still probably going to start more often than not.

I think they need a RH bat. Assuming Murton is dealt or somehow starting with Fukudome in center, they will have no RH bat on the bench. Blanco will be there, but he's not a bat. If Cedeno or Theriot is the backup, that's not a legit bat. Ward at least provides one legit bench bat from the left. If Murton is gone, they won't have any RH bat.

Good catch. I didn't see him in the bullpen part of the write up and just assumed Tim chose not to write about him. He's got Demspter in the bullpen with Wood, Marmol, Wuertz, Lahey, Eyre and Cotts. I don't think Dempster will be in the pen, and I don't think Cotts should be in the pen. Lahey is an extremely longshot, who they might have to end up trading something for to be able to put him in AAA. I think the Cubs can throw a bullpen arm into a trade to sweeten an offer. But think the pitching staff is most likely going to be Zambrano, Hill, Lilly, Marquis, Dempster, Hart, Wuertz, Eyre, Howry, Marmol, Wood, with one wild card spot available for Lahey/Cotts or a youngster.

Darren Rovell was on CNBC naming names that were mistakenly named yesterday, including Nomar, Sosa, Wood and Prior, and apologizin.

Depends on what you want to see. The team as is probably wins 82-88 games and "contends". A signficant upgrade to SS could push this team into 90 plus territory. Personally I want a team capable of winning 95, without needing everything to go right. It's been 19 years since they've won more than 90 games in a season. Failing to win 90 is putting yourself behind the 8-ball when trying to win a World Series. For this team to be great, they either need most everything to go right (Zambrano an ace, Lilly and Hill remain solid, 4 and 5 don't implode, bullpen stays solid and healthy including Wood and Marmol, Pie/Soto really do well, Lee/Ramirez/Soriano stay healthy and very productive, Fukudome meeting expectations, and a bench player or two having a career type year), or go out and get somebody who significantly upgrades the lineup and possibly the rotation. I'm going to assume something goes wrong in the ideal scenario, and that they will need to upgrade some more to makes up for that likelihood. This team still took the 2nd fewest walks in the league last year, and gave up the 4th most. I don't see that improving from the pitching side. And as for hitting, Fukudome will help, but he's replacing 2 guys, Murton and Floyd, who combined for 61 walks last season. 20 more walks would have left them at 12th out of 16 teams last year. 40 puts them at 6th. If they can find a way to improve both these numbers, I think they can go a long way to being a solid all around team. Colorado and San Diego were both very good at this last year, whereas Philly and the Mets at least took walks, although they gave up almost as many as the Cubs. These were the class teams in the NL, I believe. And the walk remains the largest single simple aspect of the game the Cubs have struggled with consistently this decade.

the players aren't children. they're responsible for their actions, and they clearly deserve most, if not all, of the blame. I don't deny that they are responsible for their actions and should be getting the most blame but if others knew of an illegal activity and didn't report it, aren't they breaking a law (rule) as well? No, not at all.

A lot could happen, but that's very likely not enough time to stretch him out into starting. When was the last time he even pitched 5 innings? I'm sure he'd love to start one day, but I can't imagine that day being in 2008.

GMs are being discussed, but the fact remains the players deserve most of the heat. They took this stuff. There wasn't a heck of a lot GMs could do. They were under a mandate to field the best team possible, not be rogue steroid prosecutors.

It would be a gamble, but Wood has said in the past that he would like to start. . Wood has said repeatedly that he is a reliever now, and he will be a reliever at least for the immediate future. I see zero chance of him moving to the rotation until, at the very least, he's gone several months of showing he can put up significant innings without being hurt.

I can tell you that the media in NY is ripping him to shreds. Local tv news is always the most tame, but they talked about it. Radio guys are shredding him. All the blowhards who blew hard on Bonds are blowing just as hard on Roger. So far. Good. I admittedly haven't heard much because I'm busy at work- but on the way in this morning Peter Gammons, in the portion I heard, is very slow to judgemnent, almost blowing off Clemens' culpability. But, I didn't hear the whole thing either. It would be one thing if Peter was regularly ripping Bonds, but then went soft on Roger. But Peter has been among the more levelheaded in this entire debate. Cuse, Pettite has taken a back seat, but he's being talked about. Mets fans are sending all sorts of "we got cheated in 2000" emails about all the Yankee pitchers on that team that juiced. It's going to hang around awhile.

Yeah, I've been assuming that as well. I think it would be interesting to see them go with a sort of combo platter in the 5th slot, mixing and matching Marshall, Dempster, Hart and Gallagher. You can plan to give one of them 4-5 innings, and then go to the other. If the opposition is heavily RH that day, go with the righty. On the days those guys aren't starting, they are available for long relief. It could be a good way to actually use all 12 pitchers they are likely to keep, instead of wasting a roster spot on a guy that never pitches.

I can tell you that the media in NY is ripping him to shreds. Local tv news is always the most tame, but they talked about it. Radio guys are shredding him. All the blowhards who blew hard on Bonds are blowing just as hard on Roger. So far.

No, I don't think that.

Wont he be a FA after this season? Yes he will. So you could make the same argument with Santana in that you're not going to trade too much value as you can get him as an FA the following year. I agree that he's not a need, but man that would be a great bullpen. But then the argument would diverge into it being really smart to give a great starting pitcher big money and not really smart to go out and spend huge on free agent closers.

Agreed, given how much they have spent on the core of this team and even with the increased payroll they will need to have production from younger, less proven, less expensive players. I would have no problem given Marshall a spot in the rotation, I think the Cubs have to handle him better. He's not a strong pitcher by any stretch of the imagination, he's been blessed with long arms, quick hips, and a strong arm. Since he isn't physically strong, they have to put him on Maddux-like pitch counts to ensure he can go 30+ starts and hopefully not wear down. I'd like to see him get some rest during the year as well, maybe skip a start if he does show usually high signs of fatigue. As far as the entire group of possible starters, I think between Marquis, Marshall, Gallagher, & Hart, there will be enough there to justify going with them over bringing in someone else expensive in what it takes to acquire him and/or salary. Double agreed.

I have very little interest in acquiring another pitcher. If a nice one comes along at a reasonable price, fine and dandy. But why are you suggesting they need to slot somebody ahead of Rich Hill? I don't believe I've read a name yet who would be better than him.

That's what his lawyer said.

Well said. I think it's that, along with the fact that there has been a lot of dirt on Bonds already out in the open, and very little, if any, on Clemens. The players have a "don't snitch" policy, and for the most part, the media has played right along. They all have names and stories they have chosen not to run with, some for journalistic reasons (burden of proof/credible sources), and some probably because they like some guys and don't like others, or are just trying to be part of the crowd.

http://images.jrcinteractive.com/binaries/FSImage/2007/12/13/1197605170784_web_12_14_page_one_EPS_copy.jpg Race may be a factor, but I don't think it's close to the top factor. There are many. First and foremost, there has been real dirt on Bonds for a long time, and really nothing on Clemens. That's kind of important. But also, Bonds has treated the media like crap forever, and Clemens has more or less played the game. Is that some sort of justification? Probably not, but when you talk about how the media treats a guy, it matters. The big hullabaloo has been about sacred records and all that nonsense people who are stuck in the past are infatuated with. And the HR was that sacred record. Bonds hits them, Roger's just a pitcher. HR records are very easily tied to steroid discussions. What is less a part of the story is how these drugs help put off the effects of aging. There's been a backlash against the HR to some extent, with more people wanting to see what baseball supposedly used to be about. That means things like pitching, defense, small ball, and other things, are glorified, while big burly HR hitters are ridiculed. It'll be interesting to see how the media handles this part of the story. It's pretty clear that so far Clemens' name has been the biggest part. Everything I've heard has been very anti-Clemens, guys calling for him not to make the hall, people calling him a fraud, asking for Cy Young awards to be returned, etc. Roger is most likely done with the game, so it will never be just like the Bonds situation, with him still playing after his news broke. It's really difficult to actually compare the two situations and come to any conclusion that strongly supports the idea that race played a significant role. But I'm sure there's a bigot or three out there who revel in the black Bonds downfall saga while ignoring the Clemens issue.

http://images.jrcinteractive.com/binaries/FSImage/2007/12/13/1197605170784_web_12_14_page_one_EPS_copy.jpg

Who you missing?

Are you a high school baseball coach? Yes. And you believe that your background as a longtime high school baseball coach qualifies you as somebody who can accurately determine the level of mental focus of an elite level major league pitcher from moment to moment, given game conditions? To me, that is part of the fun of this game - we haven't developed metrics that can quantify each and every factor, so you can argue over some of the issues. I don't see where the fun is in arguing over whether a guy is a mental midget.