jersey cubs fan

Is it really bad luck to give up long balls? Usually you hear of luck being involved when you're talking about balls in play. But HR, BB and K are the things a pitcher controls.

Wind schmind. What was his excuse in 2004 and 2005? OPS barely over .800 for 2 years in one of the best hitters' parks, and he was on the young side of 30 then too. Speaking of turning things around, while his May looks good, he's got a 462 OPS in the past week. He hasn't done much since the day before Mother's Day.

You nonsensical ramblings aren't helpful.

I was starting to think that I was the only rational person left on NSBB. I am amazed how some posters overreact to anything that happens to be whispered by someone. I have supported Hendry in the past, but I can't believe he would give up Murton for a relief pitcher especially since we seem to lead the league in quantity (not quality) of relief pitchers. As some posters have pointed out, Murton is the kind of player that you package with pitching prospects to get a big name player. I don't believe this rumor unless it is really an outstanding relief pitcher. I was thinking the same thing. First, the over-reaction to a rumor. Second, that trading Murton would not be even close to the worst thing Hendry has done. If the Cubs were playing fantasy baseball, then Muton has has good value, but when you actually have to put a 9 man team on the field, mixing defense with offense, Murton has avg. value. Murton is only good if it's fantasy baseball? Funny, considering it's Soriano who is actually overrated by the fantasty game, with the overemphasis on counting stats like HR and SB. Murton has well above average value because he's a cheap player who can give you a .360 OBP along with an 800+ OPS. That is valuable. A multi million player with those numbers is far less valuable. The problem is Hendry painted himself into a corner years ago with the construction of this team. Every year he's made it more and more difficult to fix the issue. Murton had great value to this team until they decided he wasn't worth playing.

Do you really need me to give you a gigantic list of players who had a similarly good season in their rookie or sophomore year only to flop afterwards? Once again, I'm a fan of Murton and only somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but let's be realistic. His numbers last year do not mean "there is no reason" it won't happen this year with regular play. His numbers last year are not the only support.

They aren't his numbers becuase he doesn't get to play on a consistent basis. The people running the Cubs are traditionalists. They want a Slugger in the corner outfiled spot. I called this as soon as Hendry went ga-ga over Soriano. Then they went out and got Floyd. Hendry and crew are clueless. It's a shame. I disagree that the only thing lacking is consistent play. I think there's a little more to it than that but that's impossible to argue so we'll just leave that up to be determined. It's not quite as simple as the Cubs wanting a slugger there either. The problem is he'd have to be better in every other area -- defense, speed, discipline -- and he's just not. He's below average defensively in right field and does not have significant speed. He has good discipline at the plate but this is another thing that's always been exaggerated for him. He is not an elite walker; he doesn't even have great patience. He's just a little above average when the Cubs have been so used to players below average. A breath of fresh air, no doubt, and personally I think Murton will come around to find some power but he's out of place here now. Unless you move Soriano to rightfield and he adjusts well there, you cannot imagine any longterm future for Murton with the club without serious improvements. Now if he's traded for a middle reliever - I'm pissed. But let's not treat it as if the only acceptable trade is for Miguel Cabrera because that's just nonsense. How convenient that you pretend it's impossible to argue. It's not impossible. Any reasonable analysis would conclude the playing time is an issue. I'm not acting like anything but Cabrera is unacceptable, it's pretty much nonsense that you pretend I, or anybody else, is. I'm talking about a general theory of trading a player like him. You don't trade him for short-term bullpen help. You do trade him if you can get a really good improvement. There's no benefit to trade him if you aren't getting a better player in the end. Who that is depends on who else you include in a trade of Murton. Murton and a decent pitching prospect could get you a decent starting pitcher. Murton, Colvin and Gallagher should get you an impact position player.

Last season he had an 809 OPS and a 365 OBP when given enough playing time. There is no reason he couldn't produce those #s, even surpass them if given a chance to play on a regular basis. His minor league numbers suggested he could do that, his major league career so far backs that up. A slow start to a season with erratic playing time doesn't change that. This would be classic sell on the low if he trades Murton.

Who is shocked? Well, the "!?" at the end of the thread title made me think mdwilla was surprised. Good point. I've feared Murton has been on the block for a while, and not because the Cubs can't live without him, but because the Cubs motivation for trading Murton, and target for using him as bait, was most likely going to be all wrong. If you put him in a package for Miguel Cabrera, I'd pack his bags and fly the plane. If you give him spotty playing time and his numbers suffer, then try and "shore up the bullpen" by trading him like some extra piece, well, that's just so Cubs like.

It's nonsense like this that explains why the Cubs would make such a move. Those who want to see Murton play do so becauase he's a cost effective option capable of putting up a solid 800+ OPS with a .350 or better OBP, not because they think he's great. But when you support such a player, the naysayers want to say you severely overrate said player because they assume that in order to really like a player it means you think he's tremendously productive. You don't have to be tremendously productive to be tremendously valuable to a major league roster. I like Murton because he is exactly what this team has lacked, and needed, for quite some time. People, including the Cubs, just don't get that.

Who is shocked?

If Murton gets traded for some Howry/Eyre clone, that other team is going to be very happy with the trade.

Plus a stationary object like a statue would offer a fitting tribute to him since he's such a lazy bum who doesn't move.

That was last year for me.

Are you kidding me? This is absurd. He's right in-line with his career average. They need him to be as good as he was in his career year. If his slugging being 38 points below his career average is 'in-line' than yes, you're right. If not, my statement is not quite as absurd as you wish it to be. 2007 - .288/.335/.471 110 OPS+ career - .280/.326/.509 115 OPS+ He's right in line with his career norms. Pretending this is some abnormal slump is silly. This is Soriano. Pretending his salary doesn't matter is silly. Pretending 164 PA is too early to start worrying about his lack of production is silly. Soriano is going to be the Cubs highest paid player, or one of the two or three highest paid players, for the foreseeable future. They need him to put up his very best numbers. He's already past his prime, so there's little hope for upside. They need him putting up those 900+ OPS, 130 OPS+ type seasons early in his contract, because there's very little chance of him doing so in the middle to end of that deal. I don't get why any Cubs fan would just scoff at the concerns about his slow start. This is not ARod. This is not Beltran. This is not somebody with a great track record. He's been excellent for only brief stretches in his career, and the Cubs need him to be excellent for the next 4 years.

Speaking of progressing, did anybody catch the most recent ESPN the magazine. I was leafing through and saw a little chart talking about offseason progress. They broke it down by division, and had 4 categories, something like Super Bowl bound, heading in the right direction, going nowhere and getting worse. There was a Super Bowl bound team in just about every division, the North being one of the few without. At the same time, it listed last year's NFC champs (read: super bowl participant) under heading in the right direction. ESPN thinks the Bears are heading in the right direction, but not good enough to be included among the 6 or so teams that might make next year's Super Bowl. Does not compute.

This is why the offense might not be better, and could be much worse. The offensive line is very susceptible. I think the offense should be better, but the line's health is a big question, followed by just a decline in production by a bunch of old guys. There's also the fear of Grossman regressing and Benson getting injured.

Are you kidding me? This is absurd. He's right in-line with his career average. They need him to be as good as he was in his career year.

Holy fallacy of bifurcation, Batman !! The two are not mutually exclusive !!! I'm not saying they are. Although this organizations efforts in the present and emphasis on the past has always left a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not anti-statue myself. I can, however, understand why somebody could be. I think it's a rather pointless endeavor that should not be qualified as an accomplishment of McDonough, or anything truly important.

I've had the distinct pleasure of meeting Ernie Banks in person and talking to him about our beloved Chicago Cubs. It would be easy--REAL easy--for players such as himself to wash his hands of this entire organization given it's track record of winning championships (or lack thereof). When baseball fans think about former Cubs, his is likely one of the first names to come to mind. Would you want to be that guy who's forever tied to 98 years of futility? Yet his optimism is so incredibly contagious it's almost unbelievable. He hit 512 home runs during an era when pitchers ruled the game. He was an all-star at two positions. He was the first, genuine power-hitting shortstop the game had seen. If there's anyone more deserving of a statue at any ballpark anywhere, please tell us who. Congratulations, Mr. Banks! Well said! I realize that most of the posters to sites like this are way too young to remember Ernie and appreciate the kind of player he was. When you've been raised on steroid-enhanced players averaging 45 HRs a year while forgetting about the fans and team loyalty, you just don't get the appeal of Ernie Banks. As you can see by my user name, I've been a fan of the Cubs for 53 years and Ernie was my favorite. I don't think it has anything to do with age. You can be young and appreciate Banks. And you can appreciate Banks without seeing the need for a statue of him, or seeing how this is anything great. I'd much rather they work on improving present personel than honoring past personel.

There are very few "top hitters" as unproductive as Soriano. Most top hitters maintain solid numbers and get their great numbers out of streaks. The problem with Soriano is he's not a top hitter. He needs his hot streaks just to keep his numbers out of the trash bin. It all depends on what you call a "top" hitter. You get past Bonds, Pujols, Cabrera, and a few others and the most of therest of them are really streaky. We are in an era of guys who hit 40 HRs and strike out 180 times and are considered "top" hitters. What's the point of bringing up strike outs? It's irrelevant. Top hitters put together resumes much better than the one Soriano has. ARod is missing from your list. As is Jeter, who is about as consistently great at his position, as it gets. Lance Berkman is a consistently great hitter. There are more. The problem with Soriano's "slow start" is that it's not the least bit abnormal, and is actually right in-line with his career numbers.

He was the starting pitcher the day the stuff hit the fan.

I wouldn't exactly call that major WR talent. It's above average, but hardly elite. Yes, it's better than the 85 WR, but 85's offensive line blows the current line out of the water, and Payton was still a 1500 yard, 4.8 ypa RB that season. Then you have the McMahon vs Grossman comparison. McMahon is overrated due to the hype and the SB victory, but he's still probably better than Grossman. I think the 85 offense, relative to their league, was much more talented than the 07 team will be. Remember, in 85 they were 2nd in points and 6 in yards . What year is this? Yowzer, 85 they were that good. I don't see 07 doing the same. Of course they were up there in points, but I'm talking about the combo of highly ranked points and yards.

It's possible both are true. Hendry will give him starts to prove health, thus enabling a trade. Hendry couldn't trade him while he was on the shelf. But he could decide to do the right thing for the team and not handicap them with somebody like Miller on the mound.

Like the Michael Jordan statue? Hmm, I think there is a distinct difference between Banks and Jordan that begs exception. That being that one of those individuals was the single finest player in the history of his sport, the other being one that put up decent numbers that have since been surpassed by an even better player. So. You said it would be weird if they built a statute of him while alive. Jordan is just one of many examples of statues built for live people.

:-k Umm. Small sample size is in play right now. Over the course of 600+ at-bats we'll be able to better judge Soriano's value to the team. He's 31, which is still a 'prime' year. A career 115 OPS+ seems like a decent history of production that gives me confidence that he'll turn things around. I'm not even sure these statements make any sense. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't. Ahh yes, the much overused "small sample size" argument. He's well over 150 PA, there's plenty of evidence to judge his value to the team. 31 is not a prime year. 26-29 are the prime years, 25-30 if you want to stretch it. And you said it yourself, decent, but nowhere near worthy of the money he's getting. He's putting up "decent" numbers right now, they are right in line with his career. If they don't make sense to you then you don't understand what's going on with Soriano. It's pretty much a guarantee Soriano will be a huge drag on the Cubs toward the end of his contract. They need him to be great, right now, in order to get anywhere close to the value they are paying him for. It's pretty silly to wait until October 1 to decide whether or not Soriano has been valuable. We're 26% of the way through the season. It's not too early to judge. He's made mistake after mistake that a younger or less well paid player would have suffered the consequences for. But Lou is bending over backward to satisfy him because of the money. That's fine with me, if we're talking about an uber-productive true star. But Soriano is no star, he's merely a good talented player with tremendous flaws. Without him matching career highs, we aren't getting what we need from him. And it's only going to get worse with time.