jersey cubs fan

Just because his fingerprints are on the team, doesn't mean he deserves to stay. Saying all a new GM would need to do is fill the bench also doesn't factor in. Besides, I think it's untrue. Seriously, that's a terrible reason to keep a GM around. Who cares if his fingerprints are on the team. That's the point. His fingerprints are all over the team and the team isn't good. That's exactly why you get rid of a GM.

Obviously not. The question is, why would you say it's not his fault? He insulted another person quite flagrantly and right to their face, because he gave up some home runs in the game and was touchy about it. That's his problem, and he chose to lash out at the reporter for it. He's a jerk. I'm not necessarily saying it's not his fault he called the guy [expletive]. I'm saying I can't blame him for doing so. I can understand why he did it. Peope who call others [expletive] are morons.

If you think that was hypercritical, you've never seen me hypercritical. I was against the trade (I'm sure I never called it a horrible horrible signing), but as I said, my biggest concerns were about the likelihood of an extension and Soto being left in AAA. Kendall has been better than I expected, but it's been a month.

Yeah but he threw more innings than that last year. As a starter, with a set schedule and 4 days rest in between. It's not just innings, it's innings as a reliever. He's already got 40 AAA innings as a starter this year as well. He's thrown with 0 or 1 days rest 33 times this year. If he keeps up this pace and the Cubs make the playoffs, his total innings pitched this year will reach 115+. I would doubt there's another reliever on a playoff team that comes anywhere close to that number.

If they have an owner that wants to win, he'll go. Yeah, I'd think any new owner would fire him if he missed the playoffs. Afterall he wouldn't be their guy. Depends on when the sale is finalized. If it goes in early 2008, I could see the new owner taking spring training as well and April/May to decide whether he wants to fire him or extend him. If it happens earlier, hopefully they can him, playoffs or not. But if it's the Canning group, which is reportedly friendly with McDonough, then I could even see a situation where they miss the playoffs, finalize the sale in October/November, and still keep the front office intact. Hendry may not make good baseball teams, but he's managed to satisfy more than one executive. Given all the Cubs fans who still want to blame luck, and not bad management decisions on the Cubs failures under Hendry, it wouldn't be suprising if the new owner felt the same way.

I've been concerned for a while. Lou has ignored his earlier claims that he would try and rest Marmol a little. Carlos is on a pace, from June-August, for 16 innings per month, which is equal to 96 innings over a full season. Relievers just don't do that.

Demp to the rotation seems to be plausible. Replacing who? Barring a trade there's no room for another starter. I certainly wouldn't do it and don't see how he'd fit in but I definitely think Dempster in the rotation is on Piniella's radar. As for the "no room" comment, um, it's a starting rotation, there are currently only 5 guys with no sure thing #6. There is definitely room. There's simply no way the Cubs go virtually all of 2007 and 2008 with these same 5 guys. Aside from trades, there's injury, as well as ineffectiveness. Marquis has probably only begun to reach the depths of his suckitude as a Cub. I'd prefer to trade Dempster while his value is inflated with the "closer" tag. Wood's peripherals aren't any good right now, but he's got far more upside than Dempster.

Which makes it the right call. Lou trusted his best contact hitter to simply make contact anywhere on the field.....and he didn't. He trusted one of his better judges of the strikezone to not strikeout...and he did. But we're still not factoring in the odds that he hits a liner or a soft flyball that turns into two or even three outs... which squarely place the move back in "wrong" category. the chances of him hitting an infield ground ball are still higher. if he hadn't started the runners and had grounded into a dp, i think a lot of people would have a different opinion on that decision. I think the original call was fine. But after he weakly fouled those 2 pitches off, they needed to stop the runners. Give him one more chance to sac bunt if need be, but that at bat had disaster written all over it once he fouled off the first 3-2 pitch. Kendall was overmatched and not looking good in that at bat. The lighting was odd and considering he couldn't even get a bunt down, you had to think his odds of striking out were much higher than normal. Fontenot was not going to get a good jump when everybody in the house knew he was going and the pitcher was doing a good job of holding him. In that situation, Kendall's patience isn't really an advantage because he was going to feel pressure to swing at anything remotely close. A called strike 3 was definitely going to be a double play. I was begging for them not to run after the 2nd foul ball.

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years). That last part isn't really fair. If the Cubs still had Sosa in his prime drawing walks on this team they'd be higher in the rankings, too. Sosa drew 40 less walks in 2003 compared to 2002. Add 40 more walks to the 2003 Cubs and they still come in only 9th place. Plus, part of the GM's job is to replace production. And one of Hendry's knocks is not being prepared for older players having down years. Besides, the point was to show that Hendry didn't just come into a situation where the team always ranked toward at the bottom in walks. They have been 14th, 14th, 16th, 16th and 14th under Jim's watch. Obviously he hasn't paid much attention to this particular issue, which has been the biggest issue that has held back the offense. So why were you so hypercritical of the Kendall acquisition...a guy who walks about 10% of the time since becoming a Cub? Hypercritical? My biggest problem with the Kendall trade has been the fear of Jim resigning him, coupled with the lack of opportunity given to Soto who is tearing apart AAA right now. At the time, Kendall wasn't walking much at all. He looked washed up. And at his age, given his position, career path and injury history, it looked to me to be a big gamble to hope he's return to a productive status. He started slow, got really hot at the end of July into the middle of August, when he was walking almost once a game. That pace has slowed over the past 9 games (32 PA). Frankly I think it's quite foolish to waste a .400 OBP in the 8 hole.

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years). That last part isn't really fair. If the Cubs still had Sosa in his prime drawing walks on this team they'd be higher in the rankings, too. Sosa drew 40 less walks in 2003 compared to 2002. Add 40 more walks to the 2003 Cubs and they still come in only 9th place. Plus, part of the GM's job is to replace production. And one of Hendry's knocks is not being prepared for older players having down years. Besides, the point was to show that Hendry didn't just come into a situation where the team always ranked toward at the bottom in walks. They have been 14th, 14th, 16th, 16th and 14th under Jim's watch. Obviously he hasn't paid much attention to this particular issue, which has been the biggest issue that has held back the offense.

If you can keep the price down, and for 1 year, sure. Maybe add an option that kicks in with appearances, as well as incentives. But if somebody throws a 3/$15m contract at him, it would be hard to justify getting involved.

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years). I'd like to see them go outside the company's PR department to hire stats people personally. Once Hendry started citing statistics, it was always things like "he hit .300 over a 2-month period 3 years ago" or, "he hit really well with runners in scoring position and 2 outs last season so we think he can help us."

They were 14 games over .500 at 4 points, but were no more than 8 games up on any of those days.

If a guy is eligible at SS and 2B, but only plays SS, you still get to play him at 2B. I don't see what the problem is with having a guy who is eligible at RP and SP being in the RP slot while getting a start. As long as you don't surpass your 10 start total for the period, it shouldn't be a problem.

I would say the schedule is a cake walk, the problem is the Cubs keep getting stuck in the frosting.

Weird, that's a really old story. Were you searching under his archives or something?

Which reminds me of the Corey Patterson "we want you to be a slap/bunt/speed guy, wait how about hitting for power, no forget that back to speed." This org. is great at jerking people around. The problem with that is that we didn't really see Murton go for the "more aggressive" approach until this year after Dusty and co. were gone. Why would he be applying the ideas of the old coaches under the new ones when he was seemingly ignoring the old coaches when they were here? The new coaches have definitely talked about the need for more power, and I think Murton has been looking to press for power a bit this year, thinking that a .290 hitting singles hitter isn't going to cut it for Lou. Plus, I think part of the bad approach is about not getting comfortable in the lineup. He feels he has to hit big for more playing time, and a patient approach isn't really a great way to make a splash. A patient approach works best, with patience. And the Cubs have shown no patience for Murton this year, which I believe he feels necessitates a more aggressive approach. Plus, a lot of the first pitch swinging is in pinch hitting duty. As an inexperienced pinch hitter, he could be dealing with the old adage of a pinch hitter having to go up there swinging. You don't see a lot of those guys working the count in their one at bat. But, it's also just that his whole game is screwed up right now. The only way to fix it is more time and that probably wouldn't be able to happen until the spring (unless he plays fall ball).

But then look at their record vs teams outside the division. They've beaten up on some bad teams, White Sox, Nationals, Giants, while struggling versus every contender or pseudo contender in the rest of the NL, AZ, LA, SD, NYM, PHI, ATL, with the lone exception of Colorado. Of course, the sweep against FLA muddies that picture a bit.

This looks like 03' and 04'. The result was just better in 03'. Yeah, it's funny that the general consensus is 2003 was better, when in fact, they won one more game in 2004. The difference is the competition. It's sort of similar to serving praise on a clutch hit by a guy who puts a dribbler through the hole or being pissed at a guy who hits are sharp grounder right at somebody. If this team wins the division with 85 wins, people are going to place it well above the 2004 team and say they "came through".

A long reliever does not mean the game is already won or lost. Your starter could get knocked out, for one reason or another, in the 4th or 5th, or even the 6th, with the back of the bullpen all tired. I wouldn't put Wood in anything close to that roll. I would think they are looking for somebody to be a long reliever, and spot starter. They will need a 6th starter at least once, with the DH coming up. And some of the other guys could use a rest.

I'd rather he start and put Marquis for the long man. I doubt they suddenly pull Marquis from the rotation now, especially since in the last month he has stopped his downward trend. Most likely true. It was going to take a lot to get the 3-year contract out of the rotation anyway. Marshall and Lilly both have 180 inning issues, and Hill could probably use a bit of a break at any moment.

Why do so many characterize it as super man love? The vast majority of the pro Murton crowd thinks he can be a good, but not great, hitting LF if he plays everyday. The greatest value is that he can produce for cheap, which allows you to spend big elsewhere. Murton produced in the minors, and he's produced in the majors both in 2005 and 2006. Over the second half of last year he was tremendous, 912 OPS. He also does something the Cubs as a team do not do, but need to do more of, which is accept walks. He gets on base. Going into this year, all signs were pointing up. Career OPS+ over 100, 25 years old, solid approach, $350,000 salary with no longterm committment. People like guys who produce. People don't like when management wastes resources on marginal improvements over guys that produce or actually get guys who produce less than the guy they liked in the first place. People aren't putting Murton in the HOF, they were putting him in their starting lineups. The Cubs have put him on the backburner.

Right now we've got Jones playing against both LHP and RHP. Tell me, does adding Monroe into the mix to face the LHPs strengthen or weaken the OBP situation? Try and keep up man.

Whoa doctor, Hendry and his love for the 30 year olds. Are we looking forward to a 2008 OF that features Monroe and his .258/.303/.448 97 OPS+ career line in a prominent position? I really hope we only see this guy on the roster for the next 10 weeks. More needless piling on and assuming all sorts of facts not in evidence. The evidence suggests Hendry and co. see Monroe as the RH equivalent of Randall Simon or Daryle Ward -- a useful reserve/spot starter with a specialized skillset (in this case hitting LHP) and some defensive flexibility. There's absolutely nothing here to suggest that Hendry's got bigger plans than that for the guy, either now or in the future. And so what if the guy's 30? That's not even close to old for a typical ballplayer. Hendry's right to expect he's still got a lot left in the tank. You're really reaching to find fault with Hendry for making this deal. You are really clueless. I've said multiple times I don't have a problem with the deal. I'm merely raising an eyebrow to some comments by Hendry, comments that align themselves with his tendancy to provide unwarrented contract offers to undeserving players. The point about 30 is Hendry clearly doesn't understand the concept of players' prime years. Over and over it's been shown the prime of a career is 26-29, but Hendry repeatedly acts as though prime years are in the 30's.

If the Cubs do keep Monroe for next season, and platoon him with Jones in RF, with Pie in center, on the surface, it might sound good. But think about that OF OBP. The AVG OBP in the NL this year is .332. That includes, obviously, pitchers, catchers, middle infielders and bench players. Last year it was .334. Right now, only Soriano is above that level, at just .336. But he's only surpassed that number twice in his career and is a career .327 guy. Pie is certainly no great bet to beat the .332 mark next season (and neither would a dark horse candidate like Colvin). Monroe and Jones would seem to be a potentially great platoon in right, but neither is a sure thing to succeed against the opposing armed pitchers. Jones has just a .318 OBP against RHP this year, and Monroe is .317 vs LHP. Of the two, Jones is the only one with a relatively decent OBP against his potential platoon, at .341 for his career. Monroe is just .322 career vs LHP. And of course Soriano, Monroe and Jones would all be more than a few years past their prime producing ages. You might see above average power out of that OF (might), but more likely than not, you'll be getting below average OBP, and in comparison to other OF, well below average. The last thing this team needs is more weakness in the OBP department.