jersey cubs fan

They are what now, 2 or 3 games over .500? They are barely above average. That's not good. They are okay. They are lucky to be in a terrible division where there record equates to first place, but that doesn't mean they are good.

There is very little a new GM can do next year other than fine-tuning. Next year is not the only year his work will matter. So it seems to me that your basic defense of keeping Hendry around is that he spent so much money this offseason, that the team doesn't have much flexibility to maneuver in the near future, so there's very little a new GM could do right away, and therefore Hendry should stay. This is rather backward logic. The Cubs are a $100+ million team that's barely breaking even this year. They should be a 95-100 win team, given the resources. And over the course of 5 seasons, Jim Hendry has shown no ability to bring about such performance. Another GM should. It probably won't happen right away, but that's no reason not to get started right away.

why? Not sure if this is a serious question or not. Generally, it has to do with who has the last opportunity to win the game. If you play it safe at home and get a tie, you guarantee yourself another opportunity to bat. And this is generally how Lou has played it this season, or at least it seems to be the case.

When I read that this morning I was a bit taken aback. He's really putting it on the line here.

See, this is what good teams are supposed to do to bad teams. They don't lolligag, letting the other team hang around. They smell blood in the water, knock the opponent down, step on their throat, and then twist their foot. Cubs could learn a lot from the Red Sox. The problem is the Cubs aren't that good. They don't have the throat stepping ability that the Red Sox have, so, unless they learn from them how to field a better team, I don't think there's a lesson here.

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. +1 So explain to what a new GM could do? Sit as a mostly lame duck? What? A lame duck is a guy who everybody knows is going to be leaving the position in the near future. A new GM would clean up the mess that Hendry created. They would have to fine tune a roster that's ridiculously expensive for the quality of product on the field. There's plenty to do for a new guy. This isn't some rock solid roster that doesn't need changes.

EDIT - Harvey is going with Samson per Oneri. ...Adduci, Canzler and Carter are going to Dominican for an OF instructs deal. Lansford going to Arizona Fall League with Fuld and Simokaitis....and I'M sure others but those are the only 3 Oneri announced on the air with me last night beacuse they have Chiefs ties... Are there leagues that take place in Hawaii? http://www.hawaiiwinterbaseball.com/about_hwb

Marmol was called up almost 2 months into the season though. He missed the first 6 weeks (42 games). I think he is alright provided Lou limits his back-to-back appearances the rest of the way. I'll be as concerned as everyone else by season's end if he's out there 5/7 days in September. He didn't miss 6 weeks. He was starting in Iowa, racking up innings. It's not like those don't count just because they were in AAA.

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).