abuck1220

i've never been huge on murton, and i'd be all for a platoon. however, i would like that platoon to be w/ him and jones, w/ a stud at the other corner OF spot. and that was what i wanted at the beginning of the season (when the cubs had a chance to be good). now that they're hopelessly out of it, i'd rather see murton out there every day.

well, he's definitely earned it.

seriously, what is with that lame ass, limp dick, first-to-150-wins [expletive]??? both you dicks put up 320+ against me the last two weeks!

but not at 75%. and i'll get to why you can't figure out effectiveness that way in a sec. you can't be serious. if you have to give credit for rusch for not being terrible from october-february, don't you think that your argument is a bit of a stretch? i mean...you have to see how crazy that is. if not, we'll start adding up the offseason months in between his crappy seasons, and he'll look even worse than he does. here are some facts. rusch was good in 2004. rusch had good spells in 2005, and he had some bad spells. bottom line, he finished w/ a 4.50+ era and a 1.57 whip...those numbers are BAD. those numbers alone tell me that, regardless of what he did over the span of certain months, the bad had to have outweighed the good. otherwise he would have had better overall numbers. (ps...i don't care what jason schmidt did in '04. if he had #'s comparable to rusch, then, yes, he wasn't very good. the difference b/w him and rusch is the fact that schmidt had three years of sub-1.2 whip going into '04, something rusch could only dream of.) ok, let's look at your logic in determining that he has been good 50%, 75%, whatever % of the time. you're probably counting april of 2005 as a "good" month for rusch. and he was good that month. he threw 13 1/3 innings. you probably also consider july a good month (his era held steady in the mid 3's). he threw 12 2/3 innings that month. then look at august of 2005, which i think we can both agree is a "bad" month (his era went up over a run). in that month he threw 22 1/3 innings. his era went up over a run in june of '05 -- a month he threw 32 2/3 innings (another bad month). do you see why it's crazy to look at those four months and say, hey, he was good 50% of the time...2 good months, 2 bad months? his two good months consisted of 26 innings, while his two bad months consisted of 55 innings. that's why his overall numbers are bad. who cares about what he did on a month by month basis? do you see why it's misleading to merely count months??? what type of analysis is that? you want facts, i gave you some facts. his #'s in '05 were not good, regardless of what he did in certain months. i wouldn't think that you would need facts beyond his 4.50+ era, the 175 hits he gave up in 145 innings, or his bloated 1.57 whip. facts, facts, facts, facts, facts. i don't know what more you want.

spare me the "you don't know what it takes" crap. you don't think i realize that he's a better pitcher than 99% of the world? just b/c he made it to the big leagues doesn't mean he's good compared to the rest of the league. you want to talk about being out of touch w/ reality...your claim that he's been "really good" 75% of the time has been shot down left and right multiple times. it is just laughable to look at rusch's numbers and say that he has been even somewhat good...let alone really good...let alone really good a majority of the time...let alone really good 75% of the time. i don't care what counting system you use to come up w/ that ridiculous number...it just IS NOT TRUE. and i'm just dying for you to list these 14 months of "very good to excellent" pitching. are you counting the winter or something? i generously count seven good months as a cub (may 04, july 04, august 04, sept 04, april 05, may 05, sept 05).

yeah, except nine times out of ten, dribblers and dinks aren't worth crap. i'd rather have strikeouts and extra base hits than no strikeouts with a bunch of bloops and slow rolling grounders.

i picked a good week to sit myers. raw and SofS are having a high-scoring affair...

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness. it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player. you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works. This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you? I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water. why would that be a joke? he's been terrible his entire career. therefore, when he has a short run of success, it seems logical to write it off as a run of good luck. or do you prefer to consider his 6-7 years of crap just a wacky turn of bad fortune?

as strange as it seems, it's true. i'm not very good at explaining why...so maybe someone else can chime in.

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness. it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player. you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works.

false.

so he should bunt every time up?

Looks like one was a line drive single to right. Nope. One yesterday, one the day before. i can't even figure out what your point is in this thread. you seem to be saying that bunting is the key to corey's success this year, even though it's been shown that he bunted successfully at the same rate in 2004 (when he wasn't very good). The point is that his numbers are poor when swinging at the ball. wow...just when i thought you couldn't make any less sense.

he'd be replacing the most overrated player in the game, so he'd be somewhat of an upgrade.

Looks like one was a line drive single to right. Nope. One yesterday, one the day before. i can't even figure out what your point is in this thread. you seem to be saying that bunting is the key to corey's success this year, even though it's been shown that he bunted successfully at the same rate in 2004 (when he wasn't very good).

When I see how much money the medium market D-Backs are willing to eat for an unproductive player, I can't figure out why big market Hendry won't do the same with the equally unproductive Glendon Rusch, who has one less year and significantly less money owed to him than Ortiz. Must be that lefty thing - different topic for a different day I guess. Seems to me that Hendry prides himself as a player's GM. I don't think he wants to humiliate a player for a short-tem gain. He may be trying to keep a good rep with future free agents. if that potential free agent doesn't sign w/ the cubs b/c he is concerned about the possibility of getting DFA'ed once he goes in the toilet...well, i can live w/ that.

wow...i saw that he got the save and had an inning pitched, but i didn't realize the [expletive] storm he walked into. four homers, two QS, and points from all my RP help me double up HBC on the day. how the hell does sele give up 11 baserunners in 4 innings and only get charged w/ one earned run??

and guys like pierre de-legitimize it.

sorry...i didn't know that by saying that marmol and marshall "remind" you of wood and prior that it meant that you merely enjoyed watching them pitch as much as you enjoyed watching wood and prior. when someone says that something "reminds" them of something else, i foolishly assume there's a comparison involved.

with a little "change of scenery," "proven veteran," and "post-season experience" talk sprinkled in.

He'd go back to Vegas. I just checked this out, LaRoche was promoted to AAA Las Vegas yesterday. Sorry, Vance. come on, now, you didn't think i'd forget laroche, did you? I didn't know you knew anything about the minors besides Rich Hill. :P all right, that's it. i was going to offer you laroche for soriano since you seem to like laroche so much, but now it's off the table.

the cubs have to be at the forefront of baseball innovation in something.

Aren't those couple bad starts sprinkled in between his great starts considered "growing pains" we should let our young pitchers go through? of course. but comparisons to 2003 prior and wood seem quite premature. by the way, thanks to everyone for jinxing him tonight...

marshall to AAA, ortiz to the rotation.

He'd go back to Vegas. I just checked this out, LaRoche was promoted to AAA Las Vegas yesterday. Sorry, Vance. come on, now, you didn't think i'd forget laroche, did you?