davearm2

No manager actually does this in the situation we're talking about (13th inning of a tie game, with real pitchers unused). And let's not ignore that non-pitchers can get hurt pitching. Happened to Jose Canseco, I believe. Quit pretending like there's some no-brainer answer here. Giving up by having an IF pitch sure isn't one.

Just curious if any of the Dusty bashers here would like to dissect the game and tell us what Dusty should have done differently that night. From what I can see, the bullpen was taxed early that night when the starter (Belisle) couldn't get through the 5th inning. Dusty brought in his closer (Cordero) to start the 9th with a 1-run lead, and he blew the save. Cordero then came back out for the 10th. That was the 5th reliever used. In the 11th, the Reds scored twice, so Dusty brought in reliever #6 (Fogg) to finish it out. He couldn't, so he had to bring in his last reliever to get the last out (Bray). Bray then served up the tying run. Bray came back to pitch the 12th. So now when you come to the 13th, you can a) send your LOOGY (Bray) out there for his third inning (and send him up to bat in the top of the inning), b) PH for Bray then turn to a starter like Harang, or c) concede the game by having some infielder pitch. NO manager would choose c). Very few would choose a). And once you choose b), then your subsequent options are to stick with that starter, or to stress yet another starter. The game went 18 innings people. The manager is going to have to do some things he'd much rather not do in that situation.

Just spitballing here, but imagine if each of the 30 teams paid an equal amount into a common pool, and that money was used by a newly-created "International Development" program run by MLB itself. This program would build first-class facilities throughout Latin America (or buy existing facilities from the individual clubs), and hire coaching staffs specifically for teaching and developing these young aspiring Latin kids. Meanwhile the teams themselves would send their scouts to these MLB-owned and operated facilities to evaluate players much the same way they send their people to NCAA games or HS games. Seems like a much better system than the one there is now, in which it's every-man-for-himself, and (I would imagine) there is lots of duplication of effort and investment. I mean, there's no logical reason why each club should have its own facility in a particular country. On the surface it makes no sense, and there seems an obvious opportunity to collaborate and centralize the system. Done right, it would improve, not ruin baseball in these places.

This DH talk is kinda silly to me. I'd expect a team would float the idea of putting Pujols back in LF or perhaps even 3B before they tried to sell him on being a DH.

The deal the Reds cut to get the Cubs' pick makes it pretty obvious that they expected someone else might draft Hamilton.

Sign Pujols for 3B and Fielder for 1B.

Seems to me that the backlash against LeBron is precisely *because of* "The Decision". Pujols is the same caliber a superstar as LeBron, so it would stand to reason that if Pujols created a similar "look at me" circus, then he probably would get the same reaction nationally as LeBron did.

ramirez started goofing off in boston because he was upset they weren't signing him to a contract extension. that's a completely different situation than playing for a lot less money than he made the previous year. also, the year he was traded from boston he had a .926 OPS for the red sox. the last time a cub outfielder had an OPS that good over 400 PA's was sammy sosa in 2002. so let's hope that we can find some outfielders who quit on us as well as manny quit on the red sox. I don't quite follow how the historical futility of the Cubs' outfield relates to Manny Ramirez' likelihood of flaking out this year. Neverthless if you're going that route, then it needs to be pointed out that the Cubs have never paid a guy as much as Boston paid Ramirez either.

So now we have reached the point on this board that when someone doesn't agree with your point it is now free game to call them "meatballs" or some other insult? Now? That point was reached long ago. This place would be great with some effective moderators that weren't afraid to put the handful of 10,000+ post bullies in their place. This place would absolutely go to hell if people weren't allowed to put the "Aramis should bunt so the [expletive] players feel better about themselves" crowd in their place Using insults and personal attacks? Wrong. Feel free to disagree, respectfully. (BTW if you walked away thinking I want Ramirez bunting, you failed to grasp my point despite me repeating it about a dozen times.)

So now we have reached the point on this board that when someone doesn't agree with your point it is now free game to call them "meatballs" or some other insult? Now? That point was reached long ago. This place would be great with some effective moderators that weren't afraid to put the handful of 10,000+ post bullies in their place.

Hendry is just encouraging a prospect to commit to baseball over football. I'm sure all GMs and coaches use this kind of talk in recruiting. This. I'm sure a guy like Nick Saban tells 3 recruits every year that he envisions him QBing the national champs in 2 years.

Potential "Manny being Manny" triggers: * the sun * uniform colors * 90% paycut

What? Why would how much he's making have anything to do with his motivation? LOL seriously? This dude has his own catchphrase to explain away his bizarre, unprofessional behavior ("Manny being Manny"). Ramirez would be the very first guy I'd worry about mailing it in if he feels unappreciated or disrespected or whatever nonsense gives him an excuse to dog it like he has in the past.

that wont make the MLBPA happy, but he doesnt need them for anything so too bad. The MLBPA shouldn't care about that. It doesn't set any sort of precedent that could impact other players in the future.

I'm thinking that if you don't trust Marmol's health (and I don't), then trading him makes even more sense than 1- or 2-year deals. If the guy blows out his elbow, then the Cubs are still left holding the bag... just not as heavy a bag.

If names like Garza Pena and Wood don't move the excitement meter, then Reed Johnson sure the heck won't.

The loss of Chirinos carried little to no significance to begin with. Hence my phrasing.

If nothing else, this makes the loss of Chirinos that much more insignificant.

I have to agree here. I think the folks that think/hope Ramirez will displace Hill on the roster will be disappointed. More likely the Cubs see Ramirez as a bench bat that can start at 1B against tough lefties and do some catching in a pinch (or in the event of an injury to Hill or Soto). Given he's young cheap and has upside, there's still plenty to like even if he's not taking Hill's roster spot.

This. Why are folks down on Ricketts for trying to bring more money into the organization? And how is this somehow bad from a baseball perspective? Who the heck cares how they "brand" Wrigley Field, so long as they're putting the best team possible on the field. More $$$ in the bank = better baseball team. If you personally don't care to see soccer in Wrigley, then don't go. I personally love soccer. But USS has made the point that this might not be a financial slam dunk. And what hasn't been mentioned is that this would be going on in-season. Are they going to play soccer on the infield, or try to sod it and undo it in the matter of a week or so? Remember the concert they had at Wrigley that wrecked the OF for weeks? I don't care about how they brand Wrigley, but I think they're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole by trying to fit other sports like this. Add in that it might not be a worthwhile endeavor financially, and I don't really see the point. The notion that this might not be a worthwhile financial endeavor for the Cub doesn't hold any water. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't do it. It's safe to assume that if the Cubs move forward, it'll be on the grounds that there's enough money to be made on the event to make it worth their while to participate. It will make money for the Cubs but ManU can draw twice as many people at any other location. They will draw 75,000+ at an NFL stadium. Who's to say they can't double their ticket prices for a game at Wrigley? Not saying they would/could, but capacity is only one half of the revenue equation.

That blog post is pretty meh. Having a soccer field at the barest minimum width allowed by the LOTG (50 yards) would make for a crap exhibition. That's incredibly narrow for a soccer field. For reference, the San Jose Earthquakes (MLS) played a few years in Spartan stadium, whose field dimensions were 106x69.5, and it was ridiculously narrow and made the game a congested mess. Furthermore, and this is something that cannot be stressed enough, why the hell would United want to play in a stadium that's only 40k capacity? They could probably come close to selling out Soldier Field if their opponent was another Euro team (Barca and United have a exhibition at FedEx in DC this summer). Given that United are going to want to make as much money with any exhibition as possible, why limit yourself? So 69.5 yards wide is ridiculously narrow, but the EPL stadiums are just a few yards wider on average but are just fine? Only 5 of the 20 are wider than 75 yards, if that blog is correct. And again, my opinion is that width could be added fairly easily in Wrigley. Length is the limiting factor. 120 was the absolute upper bound as shown by the NU - ILL game. IMO you'd gain a lot of flexibility to both widen and reposition the pitch by shortening it down to 110 yards long. Sure seems that way looking at the pictures of the football layout anyway.

This article seems pretty well reasoned. http://www.hottimeinoldtown.com/2011/1/3/1889286/manchester-united-in-my-wrigley-field-its-more-likely-than-you-think

Frankly you should want Ricketts to focus on things other than baseball, and delegate the baseball operations to the front office folks. Meanwhile bringing a soccer game to Wrigley field is not going to be occupying the baseball folks.

The point I was making (albeit not well) is that the Cubs' financial stake in this endeavor will be spelled out in black and white on a contract. Thus the notion that this is a bad idea in part because the finances of the thing are uncertain falls flat. Now weighing the dollars against the wear and tear on the facility etc. is another matter, but they'll go in having a good idea of what those dollars are going to be.

This. Why are folks down on Ricketts for trying to bring more money into the organization? And how is this somehow bad from a baseball perspective? Who the heck cares how they "brand" Wrigley Field, so long as they're putting the best team possible on the field. More $$$ in the bank = better baseball team. If you personally don't care to see soccer in Wrigley, then don't go. I personally love soccer. But USS has made the point that this might not be a financial slam dunk. And what hasn't been mentioned is that this would be going on in-season. Are they going to play soccer on the infield, or try to sod it and undo it in the matter of a week or so? Remember the concert they had at Wrigley that wrecked the OF for weeks? I don't care about how they brand Wrigley, but I think they're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole by trying to fit other sports like this. Add in that it might not be a worthwhile endeavor financially, and I don't really see the point. The notion that this might not be a worthwhile financial endeavor for the Cub doesn't hold any water. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't do it. It's safe to assume that if the Cubs move forward, it'll be on the grounds that there's enough money to be made on the event to make it worth their while to participate.