jersey cubs fan

Matt Murton's career OBP = .368 That is not an "OBP machine" under even the most liberal definition of that term. Even assuming Murton's numbers don't go up in the next 3 years as history would indicate (he's entering his peak years now), his .365 OBP last year was top 25 in the NL. Of NL outfielders, it's top 10. For ML outfielders he's tied for 16th. I don't know how good someone has to be to be considered a "machine" but I think being 16 out of 90 in your first full season (when you're 25) is pretty darn good. If we want to quibble over whether that makes him a machine or not, fine. Either way, his OBP isn't something we should be looking to ship out of town to make Cliff friggin Floyd happy. Apparently, the list of OBP "machines" last year included: Nomar Omar Vizquel Rafael Furcal Jamey Carroll Ichiro Gary Mathews, Jr. Robinson Cano Mark DeRosa Look, I hate to quibble over semantics, but Murton's many advocates on this board have enough good arguments without misrepresenting the facts with a bunch of overinflated rhetoric. How many of those guys have a .368 career OBP. Some of those guys had flash in the pan good OBP. Murton can be expected to have a good OBP year in and year out.

The problem is not a lack of clutch relief work. The problem is the lineup and starting rotation aren't taking care of business enough on their own, so when the bullpen does falter, as all bullpens do from time to time, it's glaring.

I'd love to get a legit everyday man out there.

And it happens to all sorts of teams. Just like every team fails with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs or with the bases loaded. Yes, it's "unacceptable" to walk the guy there. But you know what, it happens. I don't get the point in getting all hot and bothered about this one annoying loss, when they've lost 18 other games this year and the bullpen has been fine overall. Relievers are not your best pitchers. That, along with the fact that they are the last ones people remember in a game are what skews the emotions about them. This is part of the reason why you don't build a team that has to rely on great bullpen work to win, because bullpens don't win games. They are going to lose a few. But lineups and rotations decide seasons.

4 OF would be fine if they had one ideal OF in a natural position. Unfortunately they don't have a real everyday CF. If the Cubs had a legit CF playing everyday (hello Carlos Beltran), then the idea situation for the corner spots would be Floyd, Jones and Murton splitting time. But Soriano has to play everyday, and they need to platoon in CF, then worry about the RF platoon. So it's more like 5 OF, not 4.

If STL plays any natural rival, KC is the obvious natural rival. You think? Maybe I'm just way off base on this, but I've never heard nor seen any of the people who are KC fans give one crap about that "rivalry." Cards fans certainly don't get their blood boiling one bit over it. It's a nice little AAA diversion every year for them, but I can't see any Cards fans going "those damn Royals!" I don't think it exists. It's made up by league. The cities are on opposite ends of the state, and are extremely different. If East St. Louis had a team, you'd have a point. But they don't. There's no other option. Tampa and Miami are even further apart, but they are the Florida teams and the obvious "natural rival" if you are going to have one. You have the Braves and Boston not even in the same geographical area of the United State as "natural" rivals playing twice a year. Hell, this year AZ and Baltimore are playing twice. If you want to say there should be no standings 6 games series for teams every year because it's unfair, fine. But if there is going to be such a thing as "natural" rivals, ST/KC is as good as most. It's not Chicago, NY or one of the close by California rivalries, but it's a reasonable matchup.

Well the lineup has scored just 4 or less in 7 of the past 8 games, averaging just 3.625, and the starting pitcher has given up 4 or more (usually in just 5-6 innings) in 5 games, so any run the bullpen gives up is going to make it look bad. The lineup has been a much bigger problem than the bullpen recently, so, if anything, there is not disjointing, there's co-struggling.

The bullpen officially gave up only one run, but Cherry also let both inherited runs score in the 6th. While I agree the offense should have scored more than 4 last night, scoring at least 4 runs has been found as a good indicator of winning. The bullpen hasn't been the biggest reason why the Cubs have the record they have, but it was the biggest reason why they lost last night. You can't get on Cherry for those two runs. Inherited runners are going to score. One of them scored on a sac fly. It's really hard to say the pitcher did a bad job when there were 2 on when he came in. He gave up a double, a lazy pop fly and a strikeout. Those runs belong to Marquis, and justifiably so. The bullpen went 3 2/3 and gave up 1 ER. Wuertz blew it with the walks, but 3 2/3 and 1 ER is nothing to get all pissy about. You can't expect relievers to be perfect. But when you score only 4 runs and repeatedly score only 0-4 runs per game (7 of the last 8 games), you are asking far too much out of the bullpen, and should not be surprised when they come up short. There are a few things that people surrounding the Cubs have gotten hung up on the past few years, that I just don't get. Finding a legit leadoff hitter and bullpen angst are two of the biggest. The focus needs to be on the lineup and starting rotation. When your lineup scores 4 or less, and your starter gives up 4 in 5 innings, you are going to lose, anger toward the bullpen is misplaced.

It's not like the Cubs were winning and he lost it on his own. And it's not like they had a good chance to win in extras if he got through it. The Cubs scored 4 runs, which is not good, and they were lucky to score those with some poor defense by the Mets letting them cross. The Cubs team lost that game, just like the Cubs team has lost 18 other games this year. It's a poorly constructed team, so that's going to happen. I think it's a cop-out to blame the bullpen. The Cubs finished with 7 scoreless innings last night, that's much more of a problem than Wuertz giving up 1 run. The bullpen is going to give up runs here and there. It's the rotation and lineup's jobs to make sure those occasional runs don't hurt you.

Why would you trade Alex Brown? I love this move with Hester. From Turner's comments it looks like he wanted Hester on offense all last season and it took till now to convince Devin... I just posted it because of this quote from ESPN Insider: Huh...I remembered the Sun-times having some of that speculation, but I assumed it was just Brad Biggs interjecting some opinion into his article.

If STL plays any natural rival, KC is the obvious natural rival.

Well, not exactly Interleague schedules: Cubs: 3 vs CHW, 3 at CHW, 3 vs SEA, 3 at TEX Brewers: 3 vs MIN, 3 at MIN, 3 at TEX, 3 at DET, 3 vs KC Cardinals: 3 at DET, 3 vs LAA, 3 at KC, 3 vs KC, 3 at OAK Astros: 3 vs TEX, 3 at TEX, 3 at CHW, 3 vs OAK, 3 vs SEA, 3 at LAA Cubs: 9 vs mediocre (CHW, SEA), 3 vs bad (TEX) Brewers: 3 vs very good (DET), 6 vs mediocre (MIN), 6 vs bad (TEX, KC) Cardinals: 3 vs very good (DET), 6 vs good (LAA, OAK), 6 vs bad (KC) Astros: 6 vs good (LAA, OAK), 6 vs mediocre (CHW, SEA), 6 vs bad (TEX) Based on this, the Cardinals actually have the toughest interleague schedule with 9 games against good teams. Their schedule just appears easier because they have 6 against the worst AL team. The Cubs probably have the easiest schedule out of all the teams with no true good teams on their schedule. Note: Even though both are 2 games over .500, I classified the A's as good but the White Sox as mediocre because of each teams RS/RA differential. Am I the only one who didn't realize the Cubs played only 12 interleague games, while the others play 15, and Houston plays 18?

It's not a matter of getting upset with Angelo. It's more the Bears, and Angelo, being upset with Snyder for the whole dog and pony show at the meetings.

I think I'd rather take the discount on the "unproven" pitcher than demand a proven one. If it all falls apart and they have to trade him, I'd hope for at least one really good starting arm and one really good position prospect, and then use the financial difference to sign ARod this offseason or go after Cabrera.

If he didn't suffer any major setbacks, and went to arbitration every year, he'd have made much more. no he wouldn't. he'd make slightly more. look at Morneau for instance. coming off the MVP and a 140 OPS+, he asked for 5M, the twins offered 4M, and they settled on the middle ground, 4.5M in his first year of eligability. Swisher will get 3.5M for his first year of eligibility. so if Swisher gets his stats to Morneau's level at the end of the season, and wins the MVP, it will save the A's about 1M. that's a big if. if Swisher matches or slighly improves on his stats from last year, he'd probably get about 4M. subtract the extra 300K they gave him for this year, and that's a grand savings of about 200K. you have to remember that the people that determine arbitration are not the people on this board and not people who appreciate the same things Billy Beane does. the panelist are traditional stats people. OBP doesn't mean much to them when his average is in the .250's. 35 HR is diminished by 95 RBI. no stolen bases is a ding against him. as I said, slight bargain. more pay than Jason Bay will get through his years of eligibility, with worse track record of production, yet I didn't see anyone declaring Littlefield a genius when that contract was signed. You're talking about one year of arbitration. First year arby awards don't even compare to the following seasons. Good players can easily make $10+ million now if they go to arbitration every year. Those base numbers are only going to go up as well. And that doesn't even take into account locking him up in his first free agency year and controlling his 2nd. They have potentially saved themselves $15-20m here, depending on how his career progresses.

If he didn't suffer any major setbacks, and went to arbitration every year, he'd have made much more.

Not sure why more low payroll AL teams wouldn't jump at a guy like him. Considering how expensive good DH's can be, you'd think they would jump at the chance.

Why would you trade Alex Brown? I would trade either he or Ogunleye because both are overpaid and underwhelming.

It appears to me that they intend on having Dusty playing a lot from the get go. Word was he could have played late last year, if not for the stupid IR rules.

I don't think he'll ever lineup in the backfield and run the ball, but I think they can get a lot ouf of him if he has the threat of catching swing/screen passes, or running reverses.

You seem pretty excited about fluids excreted from the human body.

I was not impressed with Quade when he was being interviewed on the leadoff man a few weeks ago. He didn't exactly come across as a big thinker. He was like a giddy kid who just got called up to the bigs. And I'm pretty sure he said something about not being used to coaching 3rd, and having to learn as he goes. He's already gotten run over by Ramirez, nearly injuring him. He's gotten guys thrown out by several steps. And I don't buy the "only a perfect throw" nonsense. This is the majors, not little league. The perfect throw is not that far out of the ordinary. When Pat Burrell is gunning guys, you're not doing it right. It's one thing to challenge Jacque Jones or Juan Pierre, but when you are sending guys with hamstring issues against guys who have been gunning people of late, you are making mistakes. Quade seems over his head to me.

In other words, people make this stupid disctinction all the time even though they are wrong, so the only right thing to do is keep doing it. Soriano and Sosa are both black. What they are not is african american.

Actually, it does make them black. It just doesn't make them african-americans. This is one of the most nonsensical distinctions that I don't get. If a white guy from Germany was playing in the US, he's still a white guy, just like a white guy from Australia or one from England. White athletes from any country get lumped into the category or white athlete, but black athletes are categorized differently. It's stupid. if Soriano is black, so is Ozzie Guillen If John Howard is white, so is Tony Blair.

If Cedeno gets back on track and if Patterson continues to develop and if Theriot shows he can handle regular duty all year then I think you can discuss trading DeRosa. But that's not happening right now.