CubsWin

Todd Blackford isn't exactly high on anyone's prospect radar at the moment, but the kid is 6'4", 215 lbs and just 20 years old and he threw 16 ground ball outs tonight. He is the same size as Donald Veal and almost a year younger. His ERA and other numbers are rather high at the moment, 5.36, but he's got time... Anyone have any scouting information on this guy?

.364/.453/.418/.871 in just over 60 PA's at Peoria Not to mention he apparently is quite good defensively. Opposing teams praised his quick arm and good instincts behind the dish last season down in Boise. I find this rather intriguing considering the fact that Reed's ability to stick behind home plate was the big question when he was drafted, whereas most people expected his bat to come around. His power is still a bit lacking, but he makes good contact, has nice patience, and can even steal a few bases (5 so far on the season). I've been pleased with Reed's performance so far. I'm glad to hear that his defense was praised last season at Boise, too. He was my pick to break out this season. So far, so good, but we've got a long way to go. Last year, or maybe it was two years ago, my pick was Luis Montanez. Perhaps I was a little early on that one...

At 22 years old, Scott Moore is age appropriate for the Southern League, and, unlike last season, he isn't repeating a level. This is his first year at AA, and through 39 games, he is putting up solid numbers. He is batting .298 with a .365 OBP and slugging .546 for an OPS of .911. He has 7 HRs and 14 doubles to go along with 27 RBI. He has even shown a bit of speed stealing 6 bases while only being thrown out 3 times. Last season, he put up .281/.358/.485 with 20 HRs, 31 doubles and 82 driven in. But because it was his second season at the High-A level, people doubted that he could duplicate that kind of production at a higher level. He also struck out 134 times in 466 ABs (once every 3.48 ABs) while walking just 55 times (once every 8.47 ABs). This season he is striking out more often (once every 3.28 ABs) and walking less often (once every 12.82 ABs). Given the numbers and the level of competition, is it too early to say that Scott Moore has overcome the doubts from last season? Has his early season performance this year moved him up anybody's prospect list? For me, I'd like to reserve judgement until closer to July. He definitely needs to improve his pitch selection or his ability to make contact. If he fails to do that, I fear he won't have much of an impact at the major league level.

Montanez's numbers against lefties are pretty good, too: .389/.488/.417/.905 He has more power, but less patience, against RHPs, though. I think it was clear in the off season that a platoon in RF with Jones was the best way to go. I think if Pagan hadn't gotten hurt, we would have seen him a lot more in right. Baker and Hendry haven't done a very good job there. Whereas it is likely, perhaps, that Montanez would put up better numbers than Jones will against lefties this season, we should remember two important facts concerning the stats that have been mentioned here. Jones's numbers against lefties this season are from a very small sample size and likely will be much better than that by the end of the season and Monty's numbers are against minor league pitching. I would be surprised if Montanez wound up platooning with Jones in right at some point this season. Next year, maybe...maybe. He just lacks the power numbers that other OFers either in the organization (Pagan, Sing, Pie, etc.) or outside the org. that are aquireable can provide. If Murton can find his HR stroke and Pie can raise his SLG%, then it is possible that the Cubs get rid of Pierre and Monty could hit lead-off and play RF next season, but I just don't see that happening.

Kerry goes 5 IPs, 5 hits, 1 run (earned), 2 walks, 3 Ks. Not bad. 85 pitches through only 5 innings is a bit high, but he only allowed 1 earned run and walked only 2. He threw close to 90 pitches which is where he wanted to be before joining the Cubs. Considering he threw 70 pitches last time out, he should be good for close to 100 pitches in his first start with the Cubs on the 17th, assuming they bring him and don't decide to go with one more rehab start.

And the funny thing is, I will only stick to my guns until someone can poke holes in the logic surrounding their decision. sarcasm? No, honesty. I mean it. I didn't base my opinion of this move on anything other than the logic at the time the decision was made. To base it on anything else, anything including any hindsight would be unfair. If someone can engage the facts and logic that I have laid out and show how it is either incomplete or faulty, I will gladly alter my opinion. dude, that's all the last two pages of this thread is. there were TONS of people who said it was a bad idea last year when it was going on, so it's not hindsight. i started to respond to each one of your 'points' and then i get to stuff about matt lawton and what if's involving players that weren't on the team last year, and i realized that you're either stubbornly grasping at straws or just trolling. either way, i decided it wasn't worth it. This truly saddens me. This is the first time I've ever been accused of trolling. And it only took 2700+ posts for it to happen. I'm doing my best to have an honest conversation, no personal comments in it at all and this is what I get back. It seems like, if you have a different view on a subject on this board, some people are so closed-minded that they can't bring themselves to even consider the validity of your points. The points I made were logically sound, made in good faith but possibly not fully informed. If new information was brought to light, it could change their validity, but based on the info that had been introduced into the discussion, no one has poked holes in anything. JonMDavis gave an excellent response. Very thoughtful and I intend on responding to it in a PM to him as to not furthur hijack this thread. But I felt I had to respond to this one because it made me so sad to put so much effort into responding to people's counter-arguments, only to be accused of being a troll because I wasn't swayed by the simple restatement of previous arguments and ridicule that I received. Hindsight was introduced not to say that no one disagreed with the Wood desicion at the time it was made. I know they did. I was here. It was made because people were using facts that happened afterwards, like the Cubs didn't make the playoffs, he only pitched 12 innings and the like. Using that type of stuff to make your argument is using hindsight and what's worse is, I think you know it. People please, if you aren't willing to have an open and honest discussion, please don't join in on one. Please let's disagree. But lets also read fully the other person's points and actually consider the possibility that they might be right. Not only does it make for a much more enjoyable and fruitful discussion in which we might learn something from each other, but it is actually the American thing to do, the democratic thing to do. Its good citizenship. And I think we could all use a little practice in that.

And the funny thing is, I will only stick to my guns until someone can poke holes in the logic surrounding their decision. sarcasm? No, honesty. I mean it. I didn't base my opinion of this move on anything other than the logic at the time the decision was made. To base it on anything else, anything including any hindsight would be unfair. If someone can engage the facts and logic that I have laid out and show how it is either incomplete or faulty, I will gladly alter my opinion. They already have a number of times. How? All I've read have been simple restatements of the argument I have already addressed or misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the meaning of my argument. I have diligently and thoughtfully replied to responses and, in many cases, received short and relatively thoughtless responses in return. I found Jon's response to be rather thoughtful, and I gave it a long and thorough response that I felt addressed the points he raised. I await his response. But posts that simply say that the holes have already been poked lack the necessary evidence. Its not just enough to say it, you need to show it. Don't you?

And the funny thing is, I will only stick to my guns until someone can poke holes in the logic surrounding their decision. The holes have been poked, your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't mean they don't exist. I've read the responses. I haven't seen it. I am more than willing to have you help me see it. All I have read to date is a restating of the same argument that I previously addressed and, I believe, effectively countered with the logic and facts I have put forth. No one has shown that being 4 games back with two months to play was too big of a deficit and the Cubs were foolish to try to overcome it. No one has shown that the potential harm of missing Wood for a month this season is any greater than a few wins. No one has shown that it was completely knowable that Matt Lawton would fail as much as he did as a lead-off hitter. No one has chosen the hypothetical, yet basically equal, option of voluntarily sitting Howry this season if the Cubs find themselves 4 games out of the wildcard on July 31st. And no one has shown why not shutting Wood down last season put Kerry's health in more danger than it already was. That's what poking holes in my argument would look like. Wouldn't it? But no one has done any of that. All we have here is the difference of point of view. Some fans looked at the Cubs chances on July 31st from a more pessimistic view and saw little to no chance of the Cubs coming back, and thus, the decision to gamble with Wood was utterly pointless. I completely understand this point of view. If I shared in their pessimism, I would agree completely. But I don't. I know that it wasn't a high percentage play, but I also know that strange and unexpected things happen quite often in baseball. Injuries occur. Fortunes turn on a dime. The moderately pessimistic view of the Cubs chances on July 31st didn't allow for those possibilities, but I'm glad that Hendry's and Baker's view did. I still would have shelved Wood earlier than they did, but not at the beginning of August. No way.

And the funny thing is, I will only stick to my guns until someone can poke holes in the logic surrounding their decision. sarcasm? No, honesty. I mean it. I didn't base my opinion of this move on anything other than the logic at the time the decision was made. To base it on anything else, anything including any hindsight would be unfair. If someone can engage the facts and logic that I have laid out and show how it is either incomplete or faulty, I will gladly alter my opinion.

Uh, Jon, I only set it in the future for the fun of it. It is the exact same scenario the Cubs faced on July 31st last season so it is completely relevent. It couldn't be a more relevent hypothetical. Well, oddly enough, it is almost the exact same situation (just change a few minor details) the Cubs faced with Wood last season, who was the Cubs best right-handed set-up man at the time just like Howry is now. So for all intents and purposes, it is completely plausible. According to the doctors, Kerry wouldn't be further damaged if allowed to pitch with the rotator fraying. He just would have to deal with the discomfort which would get a lot easier if he is only pitching an inning instead of 6 or 7 innings. So, basically, the Cubs were presented with the exact same choice on July 31st last season that you have called not plausible. You are 4 games back of the wildcard with two months to play. Anything can happen. You are given the choice of sitting your best set up man (last season Wood, this season Howry) or not sitting him and putting your best 25 on the field to try to get into the playoffs. What would you choose? Where do you get 12 IPs? Is that the amount of innings your best set up will pitch in two months? Because that is the potential difference Kerry would have made, not 12 innings. I don't know where you got that. I thought baseball and the GM's job was about winning games. No, Jon. That's why I mentioned that they were only 4 games out with two months to play. Come on, let's have an honest discussion, okay? If they were more games back with less time to play, of course it would make a difference. It obviously did make a difference to Cubs management because they chose to shut him down on August 31st. I probably would have done it a week or so earlier, but now we are talking about a 1-2 weeks difference instead of a month. The potential impact of Kerry Wood not being with the team the next season for a period of one to two weeks is rather negligible, don't you think? Here, we agree. So if you want to blame Hendry and Baker for having Kerry miss a week or two more this season than was absolutely necessary, I will gladly join you. I didn't mean those of you who have been bashing the move from the beginning, I meant Cubs fans in general. If other things hadn't gone wrong (Rusch and Williams collapsing, Lee injury, Ramirez and Pierre underperforming), the Cubs would be in a much better place right now and Marshall would ostensibly be replacing Wood. Many people would look at this move as a decent gamble to take to give the Cubs their best chance of winning last season and that it has had very little to no impact on the results of the Cubs this season given Marshall's excellent performance. Unfortunately, a lot of other unrelated and unexpected things have gone wrong and so here we are. The potential downside is what...two fewer wins to date this season, maybe? The potential upside was giving the Cubs and their fans their best chance of getting into the playoffs and winning a World Series. Unless you are seeing a different downside, I don't see how you are justifying the above statement.

And the funny thing is, I will only stick to my guns until someone can poke holes in the logic surrounding their decision.

Are you up for a wager?

IIRC, he really only lost a couple of days from the knee surgery. He came back very quickly from that.

No, it wasn't. I'll grant you that the Cubs still had a slight (although not as realistic as you seem to think) chance of winning the Wild Card. Having Wood undergo surgery immediately wouldn't have been writing off the season, however, as you seem to think it would have been. As others have pointed out, Wood pitching in the setup role wasn't going to make or break the season. By delaying the surgery Wood needlessly missed time this year. There was no excuse for that delay. If he were still able to pitch in a starting role last year at that time then maybe you'd have a point, because then he could have made a difference. But not in the setup role.First things, first...Uncle Ned rules. Now to your post. I'm clear that you disagree, but you failed to address any of the hypotheticals that I have laid out and the fact that there are no guarantees as to what Kerry's delayed return actually has cost the Cubs. So here is another completely relevent hypothetical. Lets say the Cubs are in third place and four games back of the eventual wildcard winner come July 31st this season and all of a sudden Howry is out for the year, are you going to say, "Eh, he wouldn't have mattered anyway. No big loss", or are you going to say, "This injury will make it that much tougher to catch the team in front of us and make up those 4 games"? I'm guessing, if you are honest, it is the second one. So now, you are in the exact same situation and Howry isn't injured, but you are given a choice...use Bobby Howry the rest of the year just like you have to this point or sit him and never pitch him again. If anyone answers that they would choose to sit him when all you are is 4 games out of the wildcard, they are lying to try to bolster an already weak argument. The possible cost of having Kerry miss a month more than he might have the following season shouldn't come into play because the future is unknowable and a baseball team's job is to win the games in front of them. But for the sake of discussion, at the time, it was predictable that it keeping Kerry in the bullpen might cost the Cubs 2 wins this season. So the Cubs tried to win last year at the minimal cost of a possible...possible deficit of two wins the following season, and I'm glad they did. Four games is not that hard to make up in two months time, is it? Are you that pessimistic? If you are, thats fine, but I'm glad that Hendry and Baker are not.

it's may 7th, and wood hasn't pitched in a big league game b/c his rehab was delayed. i can't see how that makes the decision a wise one. Well if that is all you are looking at, then, of course, you aren't going to see how that decision was a wise one. The Cubs made the prudent and wise choice then, and it is still the prudent and wise choice today. Just because Oswalt didn't get injured, or the Astros didn't slow down and the Cubs didn't get hot, doesn't change any of it. We don't need to look far to remind ourselves how unpredictable baseball can be. Having Cubs management give up on the season in late July would have been the wrong thing to do for the Cubs and their fans. This is the hingsight thing I was referring to in the previous post. You know now that the Astros didn't cool off and Oswalt didn't get injured and you are able to say I knew none of that stuff was going to happen anyway. If you truly intend to look at this fairly, then you must be willing to go back in time and look at things from the perspective that the Cubs management had on July 31st. Also, if Lee doesn't get injured and the Cubs don't lose the last 6 games in a row, but instead go 5-1 and are in the thick of the division, we are all talking about how well the Cubs have done without Wood and Prior and how good they are going to be when they come back. If Rusch and Williams don't pull an el foldo and perform up to their average capabilities over the last couple of seasons, we would all be saying how well Marshall has done filling in for Wood and what a great decision it was to gamble on the Cubs coming back in August by keeping Wood around. We would all be grateful that the Cubs have management that is willing to believe in their team and doesn't pack it in in late July when things aren't looking so great. In an honest discussion about this subject, we must be willing to set all of that recent history aside, and see things from an honest perspective. Based on your above quoted comments, it doesn't seem like you are doing that.

it's may 7th, and wood hasn't pitched in a big league game b/c his rehab was delayed. i can't see how that makes the decision a wise one. Well, first you would have to look at the example that I provided and agree that that was a viable possibility on August 1st. Next, you would have to try to not look at this situation with the 20/20 hindsight that you are looking at it with. The Cubs have to try to win the games that are in front of them, right? That is all any team can do. You don't give up on a season just to try to ensure that Wood will be with the team in the middle of April instead of the middle of May the following year. In all likelihood what does one month of not having Wood in the rotation cost the Cubs? Two wins, maybe more, maybe less. Figure Kerry would have started 5 or 6 games in a month and the Cubs might win 3 or 4 of them. With his replacement pitcher they might win 1 or 2 of them. So we are talking about, on average, 2 less wins...maybe, right? So are you telling me that Cubs management should make the pessimistic decision and give up on a season in late July/early August at the risk of possibly winning two less games the following season? Remember, they are not guaranteed to win two less games. Kerry's replacement could do just as good as Kerry would have. Or Kerry could get injured all over again in spring training and not be there at all the following season. So they should give up on the possibilities of winning the season that they are currently playing to try to control an uncontrollable future season that is months away? Is that what you would have them do?

I believe he is on track to make his first start on the 17th.

To those who gave up on the season in July, this move by the Cubs seems like a terrible one. I understand completely. It wasn't a high percentage play, but it also wasn't completely out of the realm of possibility that the Cubs could've gone a streak or the Astros lost 8 out of 10. Even though the chances weren't great, I appreciate that those in charge of actually winning baseball games didn't give up when you did. Baseball is a funny game. Strange things happen. Keeping yourself open to that possibility is a wise thing to do when you are in charge of winning games, don't you think? Or would you suggest a form of moderate pessimism is the better way to go? if the cubs were going to make up that kind of ground it wasn't going to be because they got a new set up man that could throw one scoreless inning three times a week. regardless of whether you thought the cubs were in the race or not, the risk (wood getting hurt again or being delayed in 2006) so far outweighed any potential benefit (a set up guy who could throw three good innings a week), that it was a stupid move. Really? What would you be saying if the Cubs had pulled within 2 games of Houston by late September and were within striking distance in the last week of the season but had shut Wood down in early August? I mean its completely hypothetical, but it certainly was a possible outcome that Houston doesn't get as hot as they did, maybe one of their key starters gets injured, you never know. The only problem is that they shelved Wood early when they could have added him to their pen and the Cubs bullpen blew 4 games that they otherwise might not have if Kerry had been there. Cubs fans would have been screaming mad and rightfully so. That is how a GM and manager must think when making personnel decisions. What happens to the Cubs chances if Oswalt pulls a groin? They owed it to Cubs fans to put their best 25 guys out on the field until their chances grew a bit worse. They did grow worse over the course of August and Wood was shut down. They made the prudent and wise choice, just not the pessimistic one.

Not me. I couldn't stand doing that. But whatever floats your boat, man. I understand the frustration though. I just don't care enough about being apathetic, I guess. :wink:

Of course the season isn't over yet. Too many unexpected things can still happen. There could be more bad unexpected things (serious injury to Lee, lead-off man underperforming, Ramirez slumping badly, Prior strangely injured), but there have been so many already that it seems the Cubs are due for some good unexpected things like Wood returning to form and staying healthy the rest of the season, Hendry trading for an impact bat, Hill giving up his attachment to doing well at the major league level and relaxing and performing well like we know he can, Prior returning and winning games the rest of the season at a 75% clip, etc. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

To those who gave up on the season in July, this move by the Cubs seems like a terrible one. I understand completely. It wasn't a high percentage play, but it also wasn't completely out of the realm of possibility that the Cubs could've gone a streak or the Astros lost 8 out of 10. Even though the chances weren't great, I appreciate that those in charge of actually winning baseball games didn't give up when you did. Baseball is a funny game. Strange things happen. Keeping yourself open to that possibility is a wise thing to do when you are in charge of winning games, don't you think? Or would you suggest a form of moderate pessimism is the better way to go?

That's right the Cubs caravan does usually go through Peoria. How generous of Wood to agree to make an appearance! What a pity, though, that those in Peoria will have to wait until then... :wink:

With Tony Ritchie hitting .193 at AA with a paltry SLG% of .228 and Jake Fox, who impressed during spring training, at High-A hitting .340 with a SLG% well over .600 (having hit his 8th HR today), isn't it time for those two to switches places? After how Fox performed while filling in for Barrett and Blanco this spring and the fact that Ritchie hardly played at all with the big club (1 AB, no hits), I never understood why Ritchie started at AA and Fox was placed on the Daytona's roster. Has anyone heard anything that explains their decision?

Well, so far so good. Against very weak competition (Low-A), Kerry finished 5 innings striking out 12 while walking only 1. He threw an as of yet unofficial 70 pitches and allowed only 4 batters to hit the ball in fair territory. One was a ground ball single, another a ground ball out and 2 fly ball outs. I'm looking forward to one more rehab start against AA or AAA competition on the 12th (I-Cubs are at home, DJaxx are on the road in Montgomery) which would put him on schedule to pitch against the Nationals on the 17th in Wrigley Field. Come on, Kerry.

Gallagher is tearing High-A. Another couple outings like this one and he's got to be considered for a promotion, don't you think? Isn't the FSL supposed to be a hitter's league?