abuck1220

the cubs' problem isn't too many outfielders, it's too many mediocre outfielders.

Seriously, he looks like he has absolutely nothing today. I dont think ive ever seen him pitch anywhere near his hype. are we really going to go through another round of "this young guy with 40 big league innings under his belt is never going to amount to anything?" maybe you weren't here for rich hill last season.

whew...missed that buzzsaw by a week.

two plays today - ball bounced past him in the first too. his baserunning has been poor and his plate approach has gone to hell. I hate watching this team. i agree...overall he looks considerably worse.

i sometimes wonder if soriano could tell you where the strike zone was if you asked him. with the exception of the one play today, murton's seemed ok to me defensively.

high pitch counts don't matter.

i don't know that pagan helps much.

pagan's one of those guys that gets a reputation for being good defensively because he's skinny and fast. i thought he looked horrible defensively last year.

this is one of the worst games the cubs have played all year, and i'm going to call it a night. they don't really deserve to win...though the pirates really don't deserve it either. and it just gets worse. only in this division can the cubs be competitive.

Yeah, I think you're right. so the guy on first kinda screwed that up then?

if the guy running from 1st to 2nd would have stopped, gotten into a rundown and forced theriot to throw to first, wouldn't the run have counted even if the cubs eventually got the guy out who started on first?

the article was pretty stupid, but the cubs are a poorly constructed team. the OF has too many guys and they're nearly all playing out of position. floyd makes ward redundant and izturis makes cedeno redundant (and vice versa). three loogies in the pen really doesn't make much sense.

can i put cordero on my DL since he is on the bereavement list? i would guess that since the ML team is allowed to replace him on the roster that i would be able to as well, but i don't know if this has come up before.

not even close to being analogous. a pitcher's job is to pitch well. there are things that are out of his control. the gm's job is to build a winning team. included in that job is the expectation that he fix things that come up that are out of his control (ie injuries). it is mind-boggling that people still defend hendry, who has put together a team that has disappointed for three straight seasons despite a ridiculously huge payroll. seems like a lot of people here got used to baker's excuses and are now making them for hendry.

no, he didn't. pierre sucked, and pretty much everyone on this board knew he would. he made whatever hole in the lineup there was worse. and that's his fault, not pierre's. pierre did exactly what everyone thought he would do. just b/c hendry, espn and joe morgan say pierre is a good leadoff hitter, doesn't make it so.

yeah, these past few seasons have been bliss. considering the low payroll the cubs are working with and the tough division they play in, i'm pretty happy with being below .500. The teams Hendry has assembled the last 4 years, have been good "ON PAPER". You cannot fault the GM entirely for teams not living up to it's potential, and "underachieving". that's ridiculous. a gm's job is to assemble a winning team on the field...not "on paper." and while those teams may have looked good to hendry on paper, there were plenty of obvious problems.

yeah, these past few seasons have been bliss. considering the low payroll the cubs are working with and the tough division they play in, i'm pretty happy with being below .500.

all the players that are doing well on the cubs will continue to do well, and all the players on the cubs that are struggling will improve. all the players on other teams that are doing well will regress, and all the players on the other teams that are struggling will continue to do so.

couple good weeks and 2006's last place team is all the sudden a "power", eh? :D

bengie molina looks like a good waiver wire pickup. :evil:

all i'm saying is that i'm not ready to concede that milwaukee is better because they've gotten off to a better start than the cubs. i agree. but the fact that they've gotten off to a better start makes it harder for the cubs to catch them...even if the cubs' luck improves and the brewers' luck declines.

according to RS/RA, the cubs should be 18-11 (.621 ball) and the brewers should be 19-12 (.613 ball). however, the cubs are 15-14 and the brewers are 21-10. if the brewers play .613 ball the rest of the way, the will end up with 101 wins. if the cubs play .621 ball the rest of the way, they will have 97 wins. so even if the cubs' luck evens out to their expected winning % and the brewers' luck brings them down to their expected winning %, the cubs will still finish behind the brewers (though i certainly wouldn't complain with 97 wins)...assuming i did the math right.

i didn't say it couldn't.

neither team's history means anything. i was responding to people who seem to be saying "oh they're the brewers, they'll blow it" as if the cubs have some kind of rich history of winning titles.

because they aren't? really? because the standings say otherwise. unfortunately, the division winner is determined by the standings and not a position by position >/= contest. the brewers are going to have to completely collapse or suffer some serious injuries for them not to be in contention all season. are you implying that baseball standings after a month and some change is an accurate rating system? that's not like you, dog. everyone wants to look at RS/RA, which is fine...the cubs should have a better record. but they don't, and those losses are in the past. it may show that the cubs can play up the level of the brewers the rest of the season, but the losses that happened (whether they mathematically should have or not) can't be changed. even if the cubs improve and brewers get worse starting from this date, the cubs are still in a five game hole. It's May 7th. Man I don't think anyone has came from 5 back with 130 to play. But go ahead and break your own arm patting yourself on the back about the Brewers being a good team, at least that way it will be a change from your gloating about how you knew Rich Hill was great. seriously dude, can you point to a recent post of mine where i gloat about being right about rich hill? because i'm damn positive that people talk about how i brag about being right about rich hill far more than i actually brag about being right about rich hill. and i never said the cubs couldn't come back from five games out. that's stupid. i don't know why you cool aid drinking cub fans continue to assume that the teams ahead of the cubs will fall back and the cubs will surge forward...have you not followed the cubs for say, the last 100 years? if think the brewers are a losing franchise that doesn't deserve to win the division, what do you call the cubs?