CubsWin

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...

So Dusty takes out a lefty, Ohman, and brings in a different lefty, Eyre, to face the left-handed hitting Duffy. And then takes him out after getting Duffy to bunt out. Why not just leave in Ohman? Why potentially waste Eyre on one batter when Ohman only faced one batter the inning before? Did Eyre get hurt or something?

It just goes to show how bad this team sucks. A 15-11 record is only a .577 winning percentage, which won't even help come close to the Wild Card. God, this team just SUCKS. wouldn't a .577 winning % mean 93 wins over the course of a season? That would be pretty close to winning it most years and likely would win it this year. Pretty solid thinking there, biittner. Good point. Winning 57% of the time would get it done most years. No coincidence that when the Cubs have drawn more walks than their opponent this season, they have won 57% of their games.

I really don't want the Cubs to starting winning meaningless games now. Even Hendry concedes that the Cubs are out of it. Its time to run the youngsters out there and assess talent for next season. I certainly don't want them playing a veteran line-up with the intention of purely trying to win. They need to do both assess young talent and play to win. But I believe in doing so, they will find it hard, not impossible, but certainly hard to move up in the standings. By the end of this season, I would like to know as much as is possible about Hill, Marmol, Marshall, Guzman, Theriot, Fontenot, Cedeno as a 2B, Wuertz, Aardsma and possibly some others. I would wait on Pie and EPatt. If we know they need at least one more season in the minors, why bring them up to assess them now? But as far as winning goes, I want the highest draft pick possible.

Brilliant. Great find, kroth!

Rants?

Great to see the 19-year-old Scott Taylor go the distance. He and Mitch Atkins, who is 20, make a nice pair of pitching prospects in Peoria. And that, folks, is what you call alliteration. Also great to see Tim's favorite catching prospect, Jake Fox, break out of his AA slump. He's got a 4-game hitting streak and over his last 3 games he is batting .455 (5-for-11) with 3 runs scored, a double, 2 HRs, 7 RBI, a walk and strikeout. We knew you had it in ya, Jake! Keep it up...

That's for sure.

What did he do then? He created an 88 win team, the same win total from 2 year before. Big freaking deal. I didn't say there is nothing in his past. I said there is nothing in his past that indicates he can make the moves that will make this team a winner. That team was already in place, including a HOF corner OF and several great young pitchers (before he allowed the manager to abuse the crap out of them). This team needs a ton of work, and what it needs most is OBP. Jim refuses to get OBP, so we know that won't be addressed. He didn't prove me wrong, he actually lived up to my worst nightmares by hiring Dusty Baker, ignoring the value of walks, sticking with antiquated baseball theories that have since been proven wrong..... etc. Jim started making mistakes at the beginning, only the mistakes just kept getting worse and worse. It's a downward trend that shows no signs of abating. For the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you on this stuff. Just that there is nothing in his past that suggests he can succeed. I think saying that he refuses to get OBP is an inaccurate statement. He brought in Ramirez who was a huge OBP upgrade over what was there before. Same with DLee, and Michael Barrett has improved upon the OBP coming out of the catchers position. Pierre's OBP is an improvement over Patterson's. And I think Murton's OBP is an improvement over Alou's, but I haven't looked that one up. He's lost OBP a ton in RF and has struggled mightly to get it back. But its not like .400 OBP guys are easy to come by. Would I have liked him to get Beltran? Yes. Does he need to improve the OBP coming out of the middle infield now? Probably. He has had to deal with the unexpected loss of Prior and the partially expected downfalls of Wood and Sosa. Both of those kingpins completely failed him and he has failed to overcome the gaping holes that have been left in their place. But to say that it has been a steady decline from the beginning of Hendry's reign would be revisionist history. There was a decidedly huge uptick before the decline. I don't think that can be accurately challenged. Again, not challenging much, just those statements that seem unbalanced and inaccurate. On the whole, I agree. But you never addressed the point I made about there being more than nothing in his past. You just changed the subject. I think you're missing the point. The players you mentioned all were OBP upgrades, but that's not why Hendry got them. Ramirez and Barrett are OBP upgrades because they're good hitters, not because they're necessarily proficient at taking walks. In fact, they are perfect examples of the type of players Hendry was talking about in his interview a few weeks ago. Lee could always take walks, but that didn't seem to be the reason Hendry got him. If I remember correctly, Hendry consistently mentioned Lee's power, defense and athleticism when he acquired him. Anytime you allow a top of a lineup to have the OBP the Cubs' teams have had the past couple of years, you don't really value it that much. And I don't think it's inaccurate to say that there has been a steady decline since the beginning of Hendry's reign. Every year has been progressively worse, unless you want to count 2004's 1 win gain and overlook the fact they blew a spot in the playoffs in the final week of the season. In order for that to be true, we would have to completely ignore what Hendry did to make 2003 happen. I'm not disagreeing that there is bad, just trying to make sure that the good gets included too.

What did he do then? He created an 88 win team, the same win total from 2 year before. Big freaking deal. I didn't say there is nothing in his past. I said there is nothing in his past that indicates he can make the moves that will make this team a winner. That team was already in place, including a HOF corner OF and several great young pitchers (before he allowed the manager to abuse the crap out of them). This team needs a ton of work, and what it needs most is OBP. Jim refuses to get OBP, so we know that won't be addressed. He didn't prove me wrong, he actually lived up to my worst nightmares by hiring Dusty Baker, ignoring the value of walks, sticking with antiquated baseball theories that have since been proven wrong..... etc. Jim started making mistakes at the beginning, only the mistakes just kept getting worse and worse. It's a downward trend that shows no signs of abating. For the most part, I'm not disagreeing with you on this stuff. Just that there is nothing in his past that suggests he can succeed. I think saying that he refuses to get OBP is an inaccurate statement. He brought in Ramirez who was a huge OBP upgrade over what was there before. Same with DLee, and Michael Barrett has improved upon the OBP coming out of the catchers position. Pierre's OBP is an improvement over Patterson's. And I think Murton's OBP is an improvement over Alou's, but I haven't looked that one up. He's lost OBP a ton in RF and has struggled mightly to get it back. But its not like .400 OBP guys are easy to come by. Would I have liked him to get Beltran? Yes. Does he need to improve the OBP coming out of the middle infield now? Probably. He has had to deal with the unexpected loss of Prior and the partially expected downfalls of Wood and Sosa. Both of those kingpins completely failed him and he has failed to overcome the gaping holes that have been left in their place. But to say that it has been a steady decline from the beginning of Hendry's reign would be revisionist history. There was a decidedly huge uptick before the decline. I don't think that can be accurately challenged. Again, not challenging much, just those statements that seem unbalanced and inaccurate. On the whole, I agree. But you never addressed the point I made about there being more than nothing in his past. You just changed the subject.

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement? All the good moves? This team is about 30 under .500 the past two seasons. Where are all these good moves? I don't really have to list them for you, do I? I think you know what the good moves he has made have been. But we are in agreement that it certainly hasn't been enough the past two seasons. Listing them is pointless. He's had a couple decent moves, but only when you look at them without considering the big picture. Concentrating on bullpen, speed and defense was an absolute failure of strategy, no matter how well Eyre and Howry have pitched. Top notch relievers are pointless when your lineup and rotation suck. Jim Hendry is an awful GM. He not only has failed to win a WS, he's failed to field a competitive team. He's also been the most inefficient GM in the league, with the highest payroll/win ratio. It's stunningly pathetic how poor of a job he has done. This isn't just a GM with a mid range payroll building a .500 team. This is a GM with an upper echelon payroll building a way below .500 team. I repeat. Nothing in his past suggests he is capable of making the necessary moves to turn this team into a winner. What he did between July of 2002 and the end of 2003 is still in his past, isn't it? He came awfully close to proving you wrong right there. If he can do that, why can't he get 5 more outs at some point down the road? I understand your reasons for doubting him, but to say that there is nothing in his past just seems unsupportable to me. If the Cubs had done nothing from July 2002 to now, would 2003 have happened?

Cedeno has stuggled this season defensively, but every Dodger fan I've talked to says that Izturis is amazing defensively. There have been multiple people say that he is comparable to Visquel with the glove. If only he would be with the bat, the Cubs might have something. I too am waiting to see what happens in the off-season. I don't think the Cubs can afford to have a middle infield of Izturis and Cedeno without greatly improving their outfield production and retaining Ramirez's services. They will also likely need to sign a really good starter as well. That's a lot to expect Hendry to do given his past two off seasons. We'll see.

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement? All the good moves? This team is about 30 under .500 the past two seasons. Where are all these good moves? I don't really have to list them for you, do I? I think you know what the good moves he has made have been. But we are in agreement that it certainly hasn't been enough the past two seasons.

But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement? All the good moves? This team is about 30 under .500 the past two seasons. Where are all these good moves? Nothing in his past suggests he will make all the right moves to turn this team around. It's not going to be one move that makes it work. I'm not saying all his moves will be bad. I'm saying that all odds are that when all is said and done, the entirety of his work will result in failure, as usual. Very true. When failure is anything but winning the World Series and when there are 30 teams in the major leagues, then yes, the odds are that his work will result in failure. The point is Hendry has made some good trades and some good FA signings and some bad trades and some bad FA signings. He has also not done what was necessary (overpay) to get the job done on some of the ones that got away. If what you are saying is that the odds are against him. I agree. That is true of almost every GM, if not every one. If what you are saying is that he will most assuredly fail because of who he is and what he is capable of, then I would disagree. Your "nothing in Jim Hendry's past" statement earlier seemed to suggest that you think he isn't capable of bringing this team to the World Series. You might be right. In fact, given the odds, you probably are right that he will not be able to get the Cubs in a WS. More on point to today's trades, these would have to be considered something for nothing trades. It seems he did pretty well in that regard. Is there more work to be done? Certainly. Can he do it? Yes. Will he? Maybe not. I think it is certainly valid to think that he won't. It isn't valid to believe that he definitely won't because he is incapable.

I did offer a baseball opinion. I said craig's baseball analysis was solid and that it would make it difficult for those who have a solely negative opinion of this trade to continue to have such an opinion. I fail to see the slam. For me, a slam is when someone ridicules someone else for making a post. I've been ridiculed for stating an accurate statistic that flew in the face of someone else's negative opinion. I mean these were contentless retorts that simply sought to ridicule me, the poster. No mod posted anything. What I am doing doesn't come close to what I received. I feel as if I am attacking the cynical and negatively unbalanced posts and opinions. I never write anything personal about those who write them nor do I ridicule them for having them. But I do challenge the lack of balance in a person's opinion when I perceive it. Should I not? If so, just let me know. You set the rules. I just want to know. It doesn't. But when others do it, you feel like you can to. How so? I'm characterizing their statements like "Neifi will be the everyday 2B through 2007" or "this was a brutal trade and Hendry should shove it" as cynical and difficult to support. Perhaps I shouldn't have said it will be difficult for "people to post opinions that are..." maybe I should have instead said "you are making it difficult for negative opinions about this trade to hold water..." or something like that. Is that what you are talking about? Thank you. I appreciate that. I know that I am only allowed to post here because you have gone through the trouble of setting this up and maintaining it and that you have every right to kick anyone out that you darn well please. But I could use some more help on how I have been attacking people on this board. I'm a little confused now.

I think it's very cynical of you to read what people have written about these deals and think they are nothing by cynical. You are suggesting that we are incapable of seeing a good move and being happy about it. I take offense to that. There have been some excellent points made that show these moves that Hendry has made today will not turn around anything. I agree with those points. There are many negatives to this season and the season before and some of the moves Hendry has made and has not made but should have. I agree wholeheartedly and always have. But it is unbalanced statements like this one that I tend to challenge and I am often met with nothing but ridicule when I do. Wouldn't one have to ignore all of the good moves that Hendry has made in order to stand by such a statement?

Careful, that post was chock full of stats and intelligent analysis. You are making it rather difficult for people to have unbalanced opinions towards only the negative. Good lord! Contrasting opinions are welcome on this board. This kind of post that only slams other posters is not. If I (or any other mod) see you do this one more time, you are history on this forum. I've seen too many of this type of post from you and I will not have it any more. I'm all for contrasting opinions. I've never written to anyone to stop writing what they are writing, like you have just done to me. I'm also all for opinions that are based in something other than someone's cynicism. I'm also for posts that have a bit more thought and analysis put into them and consider both sides and have a little bit of balance. If you're not, fine, its your board. Today has seen a lot of hatred-filled, purely cynical posts when the evidence suggests that these trades are not that bad. I dare to point that out and am threatened with removal. First, its Neifi will be the everyday 2B through 2007. Then, when that turns out to be wrong, its Hendry got terrible value in return for Maddux and that it is guaranteed that Izturis and Cedeno will be the middle infielders for the forseeable future. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Hendry is an absolute idiot and this is the line-up the Cubs will have for the next 2 years and those that stop to consider any other options are met with ridicule. Pure cynicism. Not baseless, but also not at all balanced. So its okay to ridicule someone who dares to present evidence on the positive side, but not to ridicule those who present only the negative? People get pounded, and I mean attacked, on this board for daring to present evidence that shows the positive. Ridicule upon ridicule for daring to state an accurate statistic that counters the most negative, lobsided and cynical viewpoints. I've never seen you or any other moderator, if you want to call them that, come to that person's defense. So, I feel I have to. I guess this means I'm out. Its your board. Its a shame. Lots of good information can be found here. Lots of great people too.

Yeah, you're right. There is no possibility whatsoever that what Hoops just described could ever happen. But seriously, Hoops, I agree that Hendry is not going to be satisfied with a middle infield of Izturis and Cedeno. He may be unable to improve upon it, but he certainly isn't looking at those two guys and saying, "Good, now I'm done." Whether your pricetag for Tejada is realistic or not is yet to be seen. It seems like wishful thinking to me, but we'll see. I certainly would like to see Tejada as SS for the Cubs. And anyone would have to be out of their minds with cynicism to believe that Hendry wouldn't. At least not before Tejada's 36th birthday.

Careful, that post was chock full of stats and intelligent analysis. You are making it rather difficult for people to have unbalanced opinions towards only the negative.

What a joke. Hendry couldn't give this guy away for the last year, and you're griping about who he got in return? I'm just happy he's gone and Dusty will play Theriot! (Or at least, he [expletive] better...) Then why in the hell won't you keep him? What's so wrong with Walker anyways? He bats almost 300 and we're going to play Perez at 2nd. Give me a break. No wonder why we're going to lose ninety games this year. Well then, isn't it time to think about and make trades for the future. Walker in the future equals nothing. Ceda will likely equal nothing as well, but might equal something. So Hendry trades nothing for a possible something and you throw a fit. Interesting. Enjoy watching Neifi play 2nd about everyday then. I wonder if you will post anything here when Perez isn't the everyday starter. Is cynicism necessarily paired up with cowardice? I don't think so.

What a joke. Hendry couldn't give this guy away for the last year, and you're griping about who he got in return? I'm just happy he's gone and Dusty will play Theriot! (Or at least, he [expletive] better...) Then why in the hell won't you keep him? What's so wrong with Walker anyways? He bats almost 300 and we're going to play Perez at 2nd. Give me a break. No wonder why we're going to lose ninety games this year. Well then, isn't it time to think about and make trades for the future. Walker in the future equals nothing. Ceda will likely equal nothing as well, but might equal something. So Hendry trades nothing for a possible something and you throw a fit. Interesting.

I couldn't agree more. Ceda is a raw 19-year-old with a live arm and a chance. That's pretty darn good for two months of Todd Walker's services that the Cubs didn't need anyway "cause their season is over. Not a great trade, but certainly a good one that has a chance of being great.

I got an idea! Why not take all that ooey, gooey sentimentality out of the national pasttime and let computers play baseball. Too much sentimentality in baseball. That calls for the dreaded eye-rolling emoticon, but I just can't bring myself to click on it...

Greg Maddux is a borderline 5th starter? I agree that it would be just like the Cubs to keep throwing him out there for sentimental reasons, at least the Cubs of old, but Maddux is better than a borderline 5th starter. He isn't as bad as we have seen him recently and he isn't as good as he was last time out or when he started the season 5-0. He is somwhere in between. He'll probably win 12-15 games with an ERA somewhere between 4.00 and 4.50 and good WHIP. That's better than most 4th starters out there, isn't it?

Supposedly Maddux wants nothing to do with the east coast.