CubsWin

It might get old, but it's pretty hard to find an informed observer who approves of the way Baker handles pitchers, especially young pitchers. Its not just Dusty and the way he handles pitchers. Its acquiring Izturis. Its Hendry. Its almost every single thing someone from BP writes that mentions the Cubs. They can't say something positive without having some cynical attack in there as well. Its rather unprofessional, if you ask me. yeah, it's hard to believe they can find a way to criticize an organization with a 95 mil payroll that has been 30 games under .500 over the past two seasons. how dare they?! Oh, I'm not saying that. Of course they can find a way to criticize the Cubs. Its pretty easy to do that these last few years. But is it really necessary to include it on every little paragraph, even when the paragraph is about something that the Cubs are doing well? It is unrelated and unprofessional in my opinion.

I think this is an accurate understanding of what's been going on with Hill. That high fastball comes out of the same spot as his curve and if they are sitting on his breaking stuff, it is going to be tough for them to lay off the high fastball. Its not that batters were helping Hill out the past couple of games by swinging at pitches out of the zone. He was making them swing at pitches out of the zone. And, yes, he is much more effective when he keeps his fastball down. He was doing so quite a bit against the Pirates and he was getting a lot of called strikes and getting ahead in the count that way. I've always thought Hill's problem was confidence at the major league level. Having this success will help, but he'll need a lot more of it to completely "turn the corner" and put those doubts out of his mind for good. I believe if he simply does the same thing with the same ease of motion and confidence that he had at Iowa, that he'll be fine. Better than fine, he'll be really good. I agree that that would be a problematic philosophy for young pitchers, but I've never heard that Rothschild preaches never trusting one's own stuff and never getting batters out with pitches out of the zone. I'm not saying he doesn't. I just have never heard it. Where did you get that?

don't pull anything patting yourself on the back, dusty. :pukel: There is nothing wrong with this comment at all. He is giving Murton a compliment by saying he has struggled at times but found himself for a strong second half run while complimenting Pagan, too. Oh my...the humanity. I realize most people here don't like Baker and want him gone, but don't try to find reasons to criticize unfairly. I agree that sometimes the piling on of Baker is a little over the top. In this case, I'm not so sure it isn't justified though. I would like to know the context of the comments, but it sure seems what he is saying here is 'Murton is coming around thanks to the way we use him, Pagan on the other hand is the truly talented one.' Then why use the word "and"? It seems clear that he is saying that Murton fought through the down period successfully and how he was used also helped. Wouldn't one have to ignore the fact that Baker said the word "and" in order to think that he was taking all of the credit for turning Murton around? Since we're picking on word usage, did anyone use the word "all" before you mentioned it? Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have said it myself. The point also is that when exceedingly benign quotes like this one are somehow in the minds of some beholders turned into evidence that he "loves to blame the kids for their own failures" then the argument that he actually does blame the kids and take credit that isn't his looks pretty weak.

don't pull anything patting yourself on the back, dusty. :pukel: There is nothing wrong with this comment at all. He is giving Murton a compliment by saying he has struggled at times but found himself for a strong second half run while complimenting Pagan, too. Oh my...the humanity. I realize most people here don't like Baker and want him gone, but don't try to find reasons to criticize unfairly. I agree that sometimes the piling on of Baker is a little over the top. In this case, I'm not so sure it isn't justified though. I would like to know the context of the comments, but it sure seems what he is saying here is 'Murton is coming around thanks to the way we use him, Pagan on the other hand is the truly talented one.' Then why use the word "and"? It seems clear that he is saying that Murton fought through the down period successfully and how he was used also helped. Wouldn't one have to ignore the fact that Baker said the word "and" in order to think that he was taking all of the credit for turning Murton around?

Apparently those in the know, like Baseball Prospectus, understand that Dusty ruins young pitchers. If BP thinks so, then there must be stats and stuff that back that up, and since I don't consider myself "in the know", can someone please explain how he does this? Thanks.

Make a thread in Baseball Discussions if you really want to pursue this. Oh, okay. All it would take is just one response, but if you think that is the way to go, that is what I'll do.

It might get old, but it's pretty hard to find an informed observer who approves of the way Baker handles pitchers, especially young pitchers. Its not just Dusty and the way he handles pitchers. Its acquiring Izturis. Its Hendry. Its almost every single thing someone from BP writes that mentions the Cubs. They can't say something positive without having some cynical attack in there as well. Its rather unprofessional, if you ask me. And since I don't consider myself an informed observer, can you or anyone else help me understand how Baker ruins young pitchers?

That would make me upset too. What reason do you have to believe that is what happened?

BP doesn't have a stance on Izturis. Christina Karhl does. She writes for BP. Gee, thanks for the clarification. So what makes the author of the article an authority on who should and should not be an everyday SS? Her unqualified stance makes her opinion look myopic. BP still put her article on their website so it reflects poorly on them, too. The points I made still stand. Whether it is BP or Christina Karhl doesn't matter. Defense at the SS position still went unquantified and Karhl's claim that Izturis "shouldn't be an everyday player" is inaccurate which you agree with in your quoted statement below. Then why bother making the claim that Izturis is not an everyday SS? Also, how do you or Ms. Karhl know exactly what the line-up of the Chicago Cubs will be while Cesar Izturis is on the team? Your response doesn't make any sense. If what this uproarious 80-page thread is all about is that neither Izturis nor Cedeno are great offensive middle infielders, I readily agree. They, by themselves, will not score a lot of runs. I was simply pointing out that there are many different writers at BP, and they don't always agree. And you ought to read the entire thread. Izturis may have value, but he won't contribute much to the Cubs. Believe it or not, the Cubs already have one of the better defenses in baseball. They're currently ranked #6 in defensive efficiency, and they've been as high as #4 in the recent past. They don't need more players who can catch the ball. They need more players who can get on base and drive in runs. Izturis fixes a problem that doesn't exist. Basically I agree with you, cheapseats. This trade is no great shakes. I don't think anyone is saying it is. But if you simply subtract Walker from this team and do not bring in someone like Izturis, this team is even worse. The Cubs got marginally better by acquiring Izturis when compared to not acquiring him, didn't they? What is great is that Hendry was able to get something that may be of value to another team in exchange for two months of a guy we no longer had a use for. And Izturis may even be of use to this team depending on who else the Cubs acquire. And for this, we have 80 pages of complaints about Hendry? I mean the title of this thread was Hendry trades Maddux for low OBP arthritic crap or something like that. And that title went unchanged for a long time. And in response to what, Hendry actually getting something for nothing? Is it guaranteed that both Izturis and Cedeno will be manning the middle infield next season with the OF being exactly the same? No. Yet it seems like many posters in this thread were going on the asumption that that was the way it was going to be. If we want our opinions to carry water, don't we have the obligation to balance out our opinions with the other possible outcomes?

I was like, "Wow! BP is actually gonna make it all the way a piece involving the Cubs without bashing somebod...oh, wait, nevermind."

I couldn't stomach reading the entire thread, but from what I did read some things seem to have been left out of this discussion. Primarily that Cedeno will likely not always produce like he has produced so far this season. He is still just 23, and this is his first full season in the major leagues. The odds on him improving are pretty good. Izturis is signed only through next season and at 26 is entering his prime. He, too, is likely, slightly less likely than Cedeno, but still likely to improve upon his career numbers. Defense up the middle matters. And finally, it is far from guaranteed that Izturis and Cedeno are the starting DP combo next season, especially with the same OF the Cubs have now. Possible? Sure. Hendry has failed to get the necessary big bat in the past. Likely? Perhaps, but many of the same people who are claiming on this message board that Izturis and Cedeno will kill the Cubs chances of scoring enough runs to win next season and that they are guaranteed to be the starters next year are same people who were absolutely certain that when Walker was traded it meant that Neifi Perez was going to be the everyday starter at 2B.

BP doesn't have a stance on Izturis. Christina Karhl does. She writes for BP. Gee, thanks for the clarification. So what makes the author of the article an authority on who should and should not be an everyday SS? Her unqualified stance makes her opinion look myopic. BP still put her article on their website so it reflects poorly on them, too. The points I made still stand. Whether it is BP or Christina Karhl doesn't matter. Defense at the SS position still went unquantified and Karhl's claim that Izturis "shouldn't be an everyday player" is inaccurate which you agree with in your quoted statement below. Then why bother making the claim that Izturis is not an everyday SS? Also, how do you or Ms. Karhl know exactly what the line-up of the Chicago Cubs will be while Cesar Izturis is on the team? Your response doesn't make any sense. If what this uproarious 80-page thread is all about is that neither Izturis nor Cedeno are great offensive middle infielders, I readily agree. They, by themselves, will not score a lot of runs.

Wow, I didn't know someone out there who felt so strongly about Nate Spears. Have at it. :D And his line in the Carolina League is one of the reason's why I think he will slug better than .311. But this thread isn't really about Nate Spears. Care to chime in on the rest of the evidence...

The one thing I'm confused by that article is the indication that the 2 Aprils were the only months he could hit in those two seasons-when April each year was only his 2nd best month by a good amount. (July 04, May 05 were his best 2 months). Other than that I agree-like they said, Izturis is an upgrade if it means Cedeno does not play 2nd next year. Otherwise, we'll have a pretty good amount of offense to make up next year from other positions. no where in the article does it say that those are the only good months he's had. i think it's implying that if you get off to a good start in april, your numbers will look better longer. What makes BP an authority on who should and should not be an everyday player? Does defense at the SS position which was not quantified or even mentioned positively in the above quote really matter so little? Would I prefer a SS who can pick it and get on base more than 35% of the time with some pop? Of course. But how available are they? Are their 30 of them? There would have to be in order to clearly determine that Cesar Izturis should not be an everyday player. If not, that statement becomes very debatable and BP's unqualified stance on the subject makes them look myopic.

You're right, its not all that young. Just a year.

As am I. Just providing evidence that he is likely better than a .311 SLG.

While I dig his patience on the season, his power has been absolutely abysmal. He still could make the majors, but a .311 SLG isn't going to bowl anyone over, especially at 2B. Fixed. :D Thanks for the fix. :D As far as Nate's low, low SLG, there are a few things to keep in mind. He is young for his level, and it has improved steadily over the season. So his early numbers pulling down his SLG are probably not representative of his actual ability. In his last 35 ABs spread out over 2 months, he has a SLG over .500. Now that is probably also not representative, but I'd take a .425 - .450 SLG from a slick-fielding 2B wouldn't you? Also, at 21, he will likely develop more power over the next couple of years. He has hit 3 doubles in his last 20 ABs and 7 in his last 29 ABs. So he's got doubles power at the age of 21. So do a lot of decent prospects. Especially when they are year young for their league. He may never hit 20 HRs in the bigs, but 40-45 doubles per season is good too.

That was written July 9th. Since then... -Ryan Harvey has hit .394 (37-for-94) over 25 games. In that span he has hit 10 doubles, 9 HRs, 3 BB, 21 K, scored 25 runs and drove in 26 more. The good news is the sample size on this hot streak is growing. The bad news is his strikeout to walk ratio is still absolutely terrible, but there is a silver lining. During his current 4-game hitting streak, he has walked 3 times and struck out only once. -I trust we all know how Felix Pie has turned it on since the start of this thread. He went .316/.352/.419 in July. So far in August, he is 10-for-23 (.435) with 3 walks and 4 Ks in 6 games. He has scored 8 times in those 6 games while stealing 2 bases and posting a .739 SLG (4 doubles, 1 HR). -Jake Fox was on the prospect radar after a terrific spring filling in for Barrett and Blanco who were off at the WBC. He went 6-for-15 (.400) over 9 games with 4 doubles and a triple. I was surprised when he was sent to High-A Daytona given his age at the time, 23, (he has since turned 24) but he did nothing but produce hitting .313/.383/.574 earning him a promotion to AA. He struggled mightily since that promotion and probably fell off of many fans prospect radar screens. But he has broken out of his slump in a big way. Over the last 6 games, Fox is batting .462 (12-for-26) with 5 doubles, 3 HRs, 5 runs scored and 15 batted in. Fifteen RBI and a SLG of 1.000 over his last 6 games. And, as a catcher, he is not playing everyday so that is over a period of a couple weeks. In his last 9 games, he is batting .368. -Two years ago, Brian Dopirak was named the Cubs #1 prospect by BA. I didn't buy it, but was glad to see a Cubs hitting prospect not named Pie top the list for once. His season at High-A in '05 was certainly disappointing, but I believe if a guy can do it once, he can do it again. Brian also had an impressive spring filling in for Derrek Lee while he was at the WBC hitting .355 with 2 doubles and 2 HRs in 31 ABs. There was reason for optimism as he started in AA this year, but Dope seriously injured his foot in his first game and hasn't been able to generate any power in his swing because of it all season. But over his last 10 games he has hit .323/.462/.548 with 4 doubles and a HR, 8 BB/9 K. Maybe his foot is finally healed... -Scott Moore finally started living up to his draft position last season when he hit .281/.358/.485 for Daytona. But because he was repeating that level, many have been waiting to deem him a worthy position prospect. It also may have something to do with the fact that he struck out 134 times in 128 games while walking only 55 times. This season, Moore has also struggled with the strike zone while putting up decent numbers in his first go around at AA. Moore is batting .271/.341/.469 while striking out 105 times in 106 games and walking just 36 times. But over his last 9 games which includes his current 7-game hitting streak, Moore has walked 8 times and struck out only 3 times while going 12-for-31 with 2 doubles and 2 HRs for a line of .387/.513/.645. -One position prospect who may be flying under the radar right now is 21-year-old Nate Spears who the Cubs got from Baltimore in the Corey Patterson trade. He started off slow at Daytona in a league that he is a year young for, but he has shown improvement every month. In April he hit .204, in May .227, in June .273 with a .333 OBP. He got injured in July so he was limited to just 15 ABs, but in those 15 ABs he hit .267/.429./.533. He came back from his injury August 1st and has been on a tear ever since hitting .350/.435/.500 with 3 doubles and 5 runs scored in 5 games. -I think Ryan Malone, the 21-year-old infielder at Low-A Peoria, deserves mention for hitting .304/.383/.432 going into tonight's action. While we also shouldn't forget Eric Patterson, Tyler Colvin, Alfred Joseph, Mark Reed or Geovany Soto as possible legit position prospects. No one still really fits the description of a top-flight position prospect, but with so many having gotten hot since the inception of this thread, the landscape of the Cubs position prospect future has certainly altered a bit.

Yeah, I saw that when they acquired him. I'm glad he did well, but he's roster filler.

That's great news. Rundle seems to be figuring things out a bit, too.

Very good, Jon. That brought an audible chuckle...

I agree, a healthy Guzman is better than the other young guys in the system. Well, he is healthy. In fact, he is completely healthy. I don't exactly know what the difference is. But the issue is being healthy for a long enough period of time to where he can find his control on a consistent basis. Now its just a matter of time and his ability to perform at a high level. I believe we are starting to see him do that.

Shh...not yet. How 'bout now? Cubs win. Darn. All I wanted was a good perfomance out of Prior. I couldn't care less about the victory at this point. We sort of got a good performance out of Mark. At least he's off the snide...

I know, man. How long can he keep this up?

Well, we decided to pinch-hit for Ohman the previous inning-that's why he was taken out. Oops. Thanks. Sorry. I'm trying to follow along on Gameday today, and its really slow. It stops for several minutes and then jumps ahead. If you don't go back to read what happened, you wind up asking stupid questions like that one... No problem..I certainly know how Gameday can be..yesterday I was happy when the Pirates had gotten a third out, and then Gameday changed its mind and the Pirates went on to score 2 or 3 runs. So it can be easily confusing sometimes. Yeah, it just went back and showed Eyre facing Nate McLouth and giving up a HR to him. Before, it had him exiting after only facing Duffy. Strange.