soapy

Interestingly, my boss routinely gives us two days off on the weekends. It's like 63 hours away from the office and I usually don't show up during that time because there wouldn't be anything for me to do. Surprisingly, I haven't been fired.

It depends how much you love what you're doing. I love my job, so I'm at work early and stay late. The 72 hours stuff is probably a non-issue, but if you're being watched and judged wouldn't you want to make an impression? Why? Why should he have to show up early to make an impression? Make an impression on whom? The fans? The Cubs? His teamates? I just don't see how this is important. This is such a non-issue it's almost funny.

Maybe he was spending that 72 hours getting mean so he could pitch better! At least I didn't say he was getting hard

I heard he spent that 72 hours clubbing baby seals. Jerk.

It already is the same old. Prior has come to ST exactly once (2003) ready to play. Other than that, it's always something with this guy. I want to like Prior but it's his job to be ready to play when pitchers & catchers report. If he can't do that, then there's only one person who is to blame, and that's Mark Prior. I don't know that you can "blame" Prior for having shoulder issues that have slowed him down. He was born with a loose shoulder, he didn't do it out of boredom one day. I agree with that, and what I was getting at with the "same-old" comment was what we're hearing (or not hearing) from the Cubs. I just always get the feeling they're hiding something, and it seems like things always start off with "everything's fine, it's a precaution" and the next thing you know it's the all-star break. I'd like a straight answer.

There's been a lot of over-reaction in this thread and I don't want to add to it but....... I admit I find it a little concerning that this thing keeps changing. He's fine...he's just a little behind...he just needs to make a AAA start or two...he'll stay in Arizona...he's on the DL but it's just a technicality... This looks familiar. I hope it's not the same-old.

Of course not. The numbers play.

This thread blows.

The bullpen is the least of this team's concerns (or should be). SP and OBP are their biggest questions marks, IMO.

Are you referring to the Corey Patterson that would get spooked by the wall that was 10 feet away and make no attempt to catch the ball? Man that guy was a headcase. I'm glad someone pointed out that this happened. The man made zero attempts to catch balls at the wall. errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr......... :deep breath:

I still don't understand how Prior getting "mean" is going to help his control.

With the 5th spot not coming up until 4/11, I wonder if that increases Prior's chances to grab that spot before then. I think he's scheduled to pitch Wednesday so if we went four days off and kept to that routine he'd be scheduled to pitch on 4/12, so I guess that doesn't work.

Agreed. What sure things are there on this team aside from Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano? There are a lot of question marks, IMO. Soriano could regress to his 2004-2005 numbers, DeRosa could very easily (some might even argue that it's likely) regress a great deal from 2006. Izturis is a good bet to be bad, injured or both. Jones' numbers were up from his previous two years in 2006 and could easily come back down. Marquis was obscenely bad last year and Lilly isn't exactly a great fit (pitching style wise) for the NL Central. Prior is a huge question mark and who the hell knows what Miller will provide. you see, here's the thing about the pessimism v. optimism thing. I don't think anyone here is overly optimistic. I do think several are overly pessimistic, and it screams at you with posts like this. with the strengths from last year that carry over it's 'regression regression regression.' with the question marks and bad recent past performances it's 'ain't gonna change.' people who do the rational thing, pick the middle ground, see the question marks but also see the opportunities, account for setbacks and regression and potential for improvement, balance out the PT from last year with what will probably happen this year, compare to the other teams in the division, have reason to be slightly optimistic about this team. what also screams at you is the fact that the same people who poopoo on the various projections that show the Cubs scoring over 800 runs this year come so strongly to the defense of predictions that have the Cubs finishing 5th. I also pointed out in my post (the portion you didn't quote) that there are positives carrying over from last year. I specifically noted Murton, Guzman and the bench. Also, I noted that they should definitely be better than last year. I don't expect the Cubs to finish fifth but I wouldn't say it's completely absurd, as some people are. I don't think it's overly pessimistic. I think there are several question marks, as I noted. Both in the starting rotation and in the everyday lineup.

Agreed. What sure things are there on this team aside from Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano? There are a lot of question marks, IMO. Soriano could regress to his 2004-2005 numbers, DeRosa could very easily (some might even argue that it's likely) regress a great deal from 2006. Izturis is a good bet to be bad, injured or both. Jones' numbers were up from his previous two years in 2006 and could easily come back down. Marquis was obscenely bad last year and Lilly isn't exactly a great fit (pitching style wise) for the NL Central. Prior is a huge question mark and who the hell knows what Miller will provide. Certainly they should be better than last year and there are some positives to consider (Guzman, Murton, better bench), but the Cubs are a pretty far cry from a lock for the playoffs.

So you're ok with a little abuse? Are you talking on the mound or Rob Dibble-type abuse? :lol: ha...yes, i'll endorse that kind of abuse, purely for the entertainment.

While I like most of the things Lou has said and done so far, I'm still really interested in seeing how he handles the SP before I get too excited one way or the other. That was probably my biggest concern coming in. I would like to see a) how he reacts if/when Marquis or Miller (or whoever) crap the bed; and b) how he limits pitcher abuse.

Since you didn't say it... Wuertz for closer.

Ideally, I'd like to see Theriot keep it up and work his way in as the starting 2B with DeRosa becoming the platoon partner for Jones (and over-all utility man). Regardless, I think he'll get plenty of playing time between 2B and/or a possible injury to Itzuris.

I think a one of the relievers and Miller or Marshall are the prime candidates to be traded for a MI, especially if Guzman continues to impress.

hahaha..."What was the question?"

Yes, yes, and yes... no, no and no. 1) You're essentially saying that Prior is better than Miller (when healthy). I agree. However, that should have no bearing on how he is treated. Why is it okay to give up on Prior and/or badmouth him because he is better (and/or more important to the team's success)? I don't get that. 2) I would think this should have the opposite effect. I think of Prior fondly because of what he did in 2003 (and 2004 which everyone seems to disregard). Therefore I'm almost inclined to give him more slack, not less. 3) Miller pitched better than Prior in one appearance. A Spring Training appearance at that. I have no idea why this should matter, at all.

Until Prior proves otherwise he's going to have his doubters. Which is pretty much everyone outside the org. And yet Miller doesn't get the same treatment, IMO. I certainly have my doubts about Prior's chances, but I'm not going to put much emphasis on one spring training appearance.

Well Sullivan is pretty much ready to write-off Prior too, but that's no surprise. People are putting a whole lot of emphasis on 40 pitches. I think a deep breath is in order.

Angelo claims that Briggs is staying put. I assumed the two sides would be working on a long-term deal before training camp, but this doesn't make it sound that way.

I would say that one of the big reasons that relievers in general (not just closers) are so inconsistant from year to year is that they're often just not that great. Most relievers probably failed as starters at some point and ended up as a reliever. Closers are no different, for the most part. They're numbers can and ofter do fluctuate a great deal from year to year. That's part of the reason why some people were so up in arms about Hendry give the contracts he gave to Eyre, Howry, etc.