jersey cubs fan

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.

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?

Are you a high school baseball coach?

As for the steroid issue. That little bogus list of names that included Prior and Wood seems to be doing its job. CNBC commentators were talking about big names taking a fall, like Clemens, Pettite and "the entire Cubs pitching staff." And for effect, the host repeated the line, "The Chicago Cubs pitching staff." It's a good thing we know for a fact that Prior did roids.

You're wrong. It means he's a piss poor ninny who should be dealt immediately. What kind of pansy has a higher ERA with guys on base? I'll tell you what kind, a documented steroid abuser. Funny how you revert to this type of a point when you can't prove me wrong. Prove you wrong? It was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written on here, what is there to prove? A guy gets hit harder in games in which he doesn't perform well. Oh geez, I think we're onto something here. So I was right then. Unfreakingbelievable. Why don't you try proving yourself right instead of asking others to do it for you?

You're wrong. It means he's a piss poor ninny who should be dealt immediately. What kind of pansy has a higher ERA with guys on base? I'll tell you what kind, a documented steroid abuser. Funny how you revert to this type of a point when you can't prove me wrong. Prove you wrong? It was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written on here, what is there to prove? A guy gets hit harder in games in which he doesn't perform well. Oh geez, I think we're onto something here.

Again, I use both but as I said, you're narrow minded and just see one thing. Honestly, I could care less what you think. Seriously, how can you possibly believe that thinking you see Prior fade away mentally when he is being hit can outweigh the facts that Prior has done fairly well when he gets into situations when guys get on? Show me your numbers after he gives up 4 or more runs...his line drive % numbers. Do you not see how ridiculous that request is? If a guy gives up 4 runs, he's having a bad game. If he's having a bad game, he probably doesn't have his best stuff, and when he doesn't have his best stuff, he's going to get hit more. Do you think all those times that Roger Clemens got absolutely rocked, and it's happened quite a few times over the years, it was because he was a mental midget? Is there a single pitcher in the game who hasn't had bad games where they give up lots of hits and 4+ runs?

You're wrong. It means he's a piss poor ninny who should be dealt immediately. What kind of pansy has a higher ERA with guys on base? I'll tell you what kind, a documented steroid abuser.

No one has LD% by split. And I have no idea why you'd want that anyway. To prove that once he starts to get hit, he gets lit up. I thought numbers told the whole story? Don't you think it's possible that most pitchers will have bad numbers in games when they have bad games?

Again, I use both but as I said, you're narrow minded and just see one thing. Honestly, I could care less what you think. Seriously, how can you possibly believe that thinking you see Prior fade away mentally when he is being hit can outweigh the facts that Prior has done fairly well when he gets into situations when guys get on?

great stuff, really. you think the reason his era with men on base is higher than his era with the bases empty is because...there's men on base?? that's like saying he gives up more grand slams when the bases are loaded than he does when the bases are empty or he gives up more stolen bases when there's guys on base. average against with men on base: .228 average against with the bases empty: .239 Numbers don't tell the whole story.

=D> I'm not on the 'roids. I'm just pointing out what is pretty easily possible, based on my own experience. I keep records and spreadsheets of my progress in weight, body fat %, # of reps, weight lifted, and strength gain because I'm just that way. I like to be able to quantify things. You're so vain.

How so? The Cubs had a mediocre closer last year and the bullpen was perfectly fine.

Banned, yes. There was no penalty policy on steroid use until after 2002, though. The problem was the lacking of testing, not the lack of being able to penalize.

I've pointed that out on numerous occasions but most people prefer the story that steroids used to be legal in baseball.

that's just a ridiculous statement. Sorry we can't put a number on it so you could understand it. well, sure, when you just pull stuff out of your ass, it's hard to put a number on it. Wouldn't that be number 2? What if you adjust for league and park factors?

but it was on the internet?

I think he probably did, I just also think it's meaningful that there is absolutely no evidence that says he did. I can't say it's stupid to think that maybe he didn't.