jersey cubs fan

He threw 6 strikes. Delgado had a great at bat and fouled balls off.

The Cubs bullpen has lost 10 games for us so far. 10 of the losses are attributed to relievers. That doesn't mean the bullpen lost 10 games. It takes a full team to win, if they don't, it's the team's fault. This isn't some juggernaut ballclub being letdown by the bullpen.

Okay, we get it, you're pissed he walked in the winning run. Fine. But what does the fact that they had a lead earlier in the game matter? Do you really think it's better to do that when you spent the first 8 innings leapfrogging each other with 1-run leads? Or if your team came back from a 4-0 deficit? The point is the bullpen is going to surrender runs. It happens. They are your less reliable pitchers, by definition. That is why they are in the bullpen. They aren't going to win you games. And they aren't going to determine your season. If you need your bullpen to go 3 scoreless in order to win games, you are going to lose a lot of games. My issue with last nights game is not that the Cubs lost via the bullpen, but that it was a walk that scored the run. Make Delgado put the ball in play. I don't think throwing a strike is too much to ask for MLB level pitcher, do you? I would have rather seen Delgado hit a GS in that position, rather then get a walk. It should be noted that Wuertz threw 6 strikes in the at bat. The 4 balls to Beltran were de facto intentional. Wasn't there a pitchout in the 1st walk (I hate pitchouts). So a good chunk of the balls were more or less thrown on purpose at the behest of the manager. I don't like putting a pitcher in a position where he has to throw strikes. Ideally he does. But bad things happen when a batter knows a pitcher has to come at him.

I don't see Hester lining up at RB ever, so no. Wolfe is a third down back - he might come out to slot or something for a few plays but I can't see him taking away time from Hester. I still wonder what happens if/when Benson gets hurt....like he did as a rookie and in the Superbowl. Benson runs into people too much to make it healthy through at 350 carry season. Can Wolfe be an everydown back? I don't don't Pittman could be, who I wanted the Bears to pick instead. Still, I like Wolfe a lot. I think the Bears take something from everybody this season and we'll see a better offense. Olsen is used like Clark in Indy. Wolfe can be used like Bush in NO, although a very poor man's Bush (hehe). Hester, I'd like to see used like Steve Smith was early in Carolina. Five years later, the WR screen finally has a chance to actually work. Strangely enough, as much as the Bears needed to take pressure off of Grossman, it looks like the Bears have the personnel to actually throw the ball more than they did last year. In my Madden season I had to rely on Peterson and Anthony Thomas to split the load for the first 8 games, and really stepped up the passing game. Worked well enough. But that is a concern. I like Wolfe as a 3rd down back, but I don't see him being able to carry more than 10 times in any game without dying. I think Peterson can start a game or two. But if Benson is out for any significant time, this is going to get dicey. I would have preferred a guy who could actually develop into an everydown back with time. I think Grossman now has a lot of passing options, I'm just not sure he has any great ones. It would be nice to have an elite pro bowl starting star at some offensive position, to try and carry the load. Instead they have a lot of good players. And I'm still worried about the offensive line.

Okay, we get it, you're pissed he walked in the winning run. Fine. But what does the fact that they had a lead earlier in the game matter? Do you really think it's better to do that when you spent the first 8 innings leapfrogging each other with 1-run leads? Or if your team came back from a 4-0 deficit? The point is the bullpen is going to surrender runs. It happens. They are your less reliable pitchers, by definition. That is why they are in the bullpen. They aren't going to win you games. And they aren't going to determine your season. If you need your bullpen to go 3 scoreless in order to win games, you are going to lose a lot of games.

If they leave Soriano at leadoff (which Lou said they will when Lee comes back) then it's better to have Theriot in the 2 spot then Murton, and Murton in a middle of the order spot (5/6/7). Why?

I don't know about Wuertz. Haven't we seen this act from him before? I seem to remember him starting out good one other year and then tanking. I'm not sure I would give him all that much more time. He seems to be unable to maintain any consistency over the long haul. You have no idea what you are talking about. He's been the most consistently effective reliever on the team for the past few years.

.333/.451/.621 Yikes.

My impression on NFL trades has always been that they are hindered by the negative affect on the salary cap of the team trading the player. If two teams trade two expensive veterans, both get hit by the prorated portion of the salary cap all being pushed to this year. But if one team is trading an expensive player for a draft pick or cheap player, they are the ones taking the hit as the player goes out the door. Oakland, as a crap team with no hope for the near future can deal with a the short-term remifications of such a hit. The Bears, as a contending team near the salary cap can't afford this problem nearly as much.

I hate being in NY when the Cubs are playing the Mets and sucking.

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.