jersey cubs fan

baseball games

I believe that was the primary reason. They want to start the 2nd half with Jones playing CF, and hope he plays well enough to garner interest in a trade. I'm not buying the "showcase" theory. There's no point in "showcasing" Jones. You do that with prospects, not guys that have been in the league for 10 years. Everybody knows the book on Jacque Jones (decent vs RHP, lousy vs LHP, very streaky, semi-versatile in the OF, etc). The next few weeks aren't going to rewrite that book in any meaningful way. It's not a matter of rewriting a book. It's about convincing somebody that the first half was a fluke and that he actually does have something left. That is what is in doubt here. Nobody knows if he's done.

And that is a gamble, due to the fact that he currently is not and there's a signficant chance he won't get better.

You know this? If you don't see it has a gamble, that is, Jones reversing course and suddenly producing for the next three months, well, I'd like to be on the other end of every transaction you make the rest of your life. Nice. You're getting on me for flaws of logic when you're counting on production from a prospect who has never produced, then calling it a 'gamble' to play Jones based on that assumption? Come back to the dugout from left field, goony. The inning's over. Counting on production from a prospect? I'm calling it a gamble to count on Jones to bounce back. Some people assume it'll happen.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Obviously over the course of his career, Jones has hit decently vs RHP. At times he has not, however. Including 2004, and 2007. He's had a mediocre career, where he's hit for okay average, struck out a lot, and drawn very few walks. He's got a very poor skill set for anybody hoping to have a longer than usual successful career. And his lack of skills make him a good candidate for somebody who will be worthless at a relatively young age. I do not know if he's done. I don't know if he's got another year or three in him. But I do know he's been awful for a very long stretch, and that he is no guarantee to bounce back. This isn't ARod having an off year. This isn't Vladdy struggling a bit, or even Paul Konerko struggling. This is a mediocre player on the wrong side of 30 with a very unattractive skill set in the midst of a prolonged struggle, and it's a gamble to expect him to bounce back.

That's Zell, he's the one selling the Cubs and doesn't have that obligation. The Trib is still a publicly traded company, and their debt holders will hold sway over any large transactions. i thought someone said he was making it private, thus buying off the stock holders and taking it off the trade floor I find it hilarious that the criteria for MLB owners is "someone who won't be good." Seriously, why is it in anyone's best interest to approve an owner who will likely make it harder for your own team to win? The system is very broken. This would be like Senators getting to approve who the new senators will be each year. They would never choose someone who will in any way compromise their own agendas They are in the process of taking it private, but it is not yet private. And the Cubs may be sold before or after that happens. Nobody knows. While taking it private, they are selling debt, which means bond holders who have already made a stink about their plans to sell the Cubs, will be involved. This isn't going to be the case of one man owning the Cubs outright with no outside influence and the ability to do whatever he wants without repercussion.

Except he isn't hitting them now, and has had similar bad stretches in the past. People need to stop pretending Jones routinely owns RH pitching. When he's at his best, he's pretty good vs RHP. He has fallen. Whether he can get back up is in question. That's why it's a gamble.

You know this? If you don't see it has a gamble, that is, Jones reversing course and suddenly producing for the next three months, well, I'd like to be on the other end of every transaction you make the rest of your life.

And the numbers have shown he hasn't always performed better in the 1 hole. He's been a leadoff hitter most of his career. He was at his best early, before teams figured him out. They realized you didn't have to throw him strikes and he started to decline. That coincided with the move away from leadoff. He made an adjustment with patience last year and got much better. That coincided with a move back to leadoff. Circumstances have played a part in his numbers being better at leadoff.

Because mediocre players routinely disappear quickly in their 30's. Think Troy O'Leary who was very similar to Jones and out of the league by 33. Another br.com comparable is Mel Hall, done at 31. Remember Jeff Blauser? Mediocre career highlighted by a resurgent age 31 season, which was followed by a disastrous 32 and 33 season before he was gone. He's not good and past his prime, assuming this has been a fluke is a big gamble. Man I hate to defend Jones but I'm just not buying it. Two players off the top of my head that compare to Jones are Shannon Stewart and Tori Hunter. Hunter is 31 and Stewart is 33. Both are having very solid years. I just don't think there's this magic age number where players just fall off a cliff. It's a slow, sometimes steady decline and after Jones numbers last year there's no way he's at the end of his career. The problem is you think it's magic. It's not magic, it's nature. The thing is, Jacque has already fallen off a cliff. It's not like he's playing well and I'm predicting he will fall. He has already fallen. Assuming he'll bounce back is foolish. Hoping he'll bounce back? Fine. But to pretend it's not a gamble is just ridiculous. It happens all the time. Mediocre players disappear rather quickly in their 30's. Some may stick around to cash their checks, but that's about it. Jones could 800 OPS the rest of the season and carry that into 2008. But it's a significant gamble. Guys who generally don't hit for average, strike out a lot and don't draw walks don't exactly have long shelf lives.

I know the numbers, and they prove nothing. In one season he did better from the 3 or 5 than he did in the leadoff. It's meaningless.

If Pie has given us nothing, Jones has given less than nothing. The "if he can just play up to his norms" is the gamble. Jones sucks, and he's worse now than when he was putting up those careers norms. His mediocre career is winding down. He's in his 30's, it should surprise nobody if he underperforms his norms. And he already is. But is it a bigger gamble than sticking Pie out there everyday and hoping he can give us anything? I just think Pie is the bigger question mark. I don't believe that in one year Jones has gone from outplaying his career averages to completely done and washed up. It doesn't add up. Pie has upside Jones does not. I don't see how it doesn't add up to you. He might bounce back, but it's far from a sure thing. He had a fluke bounceback last year that wasn't really all that good. A couple less HR and nobody is thinking he outperformed anything. He still couldn't get on base. 3 of his past 4 years (including this season) have been bad. Last year was more of a fluke than anything else. You have two guys doing very little at the plate. One guy is young and a good bet to get better, even if we have no idea where he will ultimately end up. The other guy is on the wrong side of 30 and already has a horrible approach at the plate that requires him to hit for power or be completely worthless. Plus, there's significant defensive difference. If I thought Jones was a great bet to out OPS Pie by 100 points, I'd be all for it. But I just don't see any reason to be comfortable assuming he will.

I think there's no doubt they would have to think long and hard before adding significantly, but they have always done that.

That's Zell, he's the one selling the Cubs and doesn't have that obligation. The Trib is still a publicly traded company, and their debt holders will hold sway over any large transactions.

I don't believe that. I think it's more of coincidence over anything else. Same here. As much of a coincidence as the he performs better at leadoff theory. Yeah...but hasn't that coincidence played out to be true over several hundred at bats over the last 3 years? No.

Because mediocre players routinely disappear quickly in their 30's. Think Troy O'Leary who was very similar to Jones and out of the league by 33. Another br.com comparable is Mel Hall, done at 31. Remember Jeff Blauser? Mediocre career highlighted by a resurgent age 31 season, which was followed by a disastrous 32 and 33 season before he was gone. He's not good and past his prime, assuming this has been a fluke is a big gamble.

I don't believe that. I think it's more of coincidence over anything else. Same here. As much of a coincidence as the he performs better at leadoff theory.

If Pie has given us nothing, Jones has given less than nothing. The "if he can just play up to his norms" is the gamble. Jones sucks, and he's worse now than when he was putting up those careers norms. His mediocre career is winding down. He's in his 30's, it should surprise nobody if he underperforms his norms. And he already is.

If he signs an extension with the Yankees, or is traded and signs an extension, then possibly. But if he opts out, and the Rangers money goes away, I think it's less likely. If you signed ARod to a 5/150 extension while he's on his current deal, you'd actually be paying much less than $30m per year, due to Texas taking on $21m.

Jones vs RHP .239 .298 .346 Pie vs RHP .243 .305 .411 And Pie plays much better defense. Pie over Jones obviously makes the team better. Jones would have to completely turnaround his season to even come close to being the better option. Yeah, obviously. Pie over the last month is 7 for 58. He's lost. Jones isn't great but I'll take my chances with how he's produced over the last three years against righties over the .243 .305 .411 Pie's put up this year. That's a big gamble. He was good against RHP in 2005 and 2006, but in 2004 and 2007 he wasn't good.

Again, who other than Reinsdorf is going to oppose it? Is it MLB owners or just NL ones? It's all MLB ones. The only three I can think of who wouldn't support his bid would be Angelos, Glass and Reinsdorf. It doesn't matter. They're all pawns of Selig. If Reinsdorf is voting it down, then everyone is voting it down cause Reinsdorf and Selig are one and the same. What? I don't believe Reinsdorf has the clout he had back when he caused the 1994 lockout/strike. There's a whole slew of new owners since he last ran around with Selig on a leash.

I believe that was the primary reason. They want to start the 2nd half with Jones playing CF, and hope he plays well enough to garner interest in a trade.

Forbes evaluation of team worth seems to be a little off when compared to these sale prices. (Braves and the potential Cubs sale) http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball_valuations_land.html Yeah I don't see the Braves being worth $400M when they were just bought for three times that. Those estimates all seem a little low, and I think the top end teams are, in some cases, worth considerably more than what they were appraised at. The Braves were sold for $1.2 billion? When did that happen? http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2764181 I think that total is misleading because there were stock shares changing hands as well.... Yeah. I don't think the Braves were priced anywhere near that. From the article it looks like Liberty Media gave up $1.27 billion in Time Warner shares in return for Braves, some magazines, and 1 billion in cash. Did I misread that? That's what it looks like to me, so it looks like this was a stocks for Braves trade. Yeah, there value in the transaction was something like $450 million.

They love Jeter because of the rings.

Jones vs RHP .239 .298 .346 Pie vs RHP .243 .305 .411 And Pie plays much better defense. Pie over Jones obviously makes the team better. Jones would have to completely turnaround his season to even come close to being the better option.