dalgreen

Maybe a few games better. But I just don't see how you can compare Dubois, Murton and Cedeno to Franceur, Johnson, McCann and Bettimit. I don't know why some people think playing kids is the answer. It's not. Playing good kids is. I will go on my soapbox again. They seem to always have kids who are already ready to play when brought up. Our guys seem to still have to be taught. Age is about the only thing our kids have in common with theirs. If Kelly Johnson had played for Dusty and gone 1-32 to start (or whatever it was), do you think he would have ever gotten another chance to come to the plate again? Was the difference that Kelly Johnson is that much better than Dubois or was the difference that he got a chance, he got good coaching and he received the confidence of his manager that he could go out and do the best he could without worrying about his job? I don't know the answer to that last question, btw. But I do know the answer to the first one. The answer to the first question is an emphatic "no". As a Patterson supporter, Baker has confused me with his patience with Patterson which seems to go against Baker's m.o. But I still think the Braves have more quality young guys than we do who happen to already know how to play the game by the time they are brought up.

Maybe a few games better. But I just don't see how you can compare Dubois, Murton and Cedeno to Franceur, Johnson, McCann and Bettimit. I don't know why some people think playing kids is the answer. It's not. Playing good kids is. I will go on my soapbox again. They seem to always have kids who are already ready to play when brought up. Our guys seem to still have to be taught. Age is about the only thing our kids have in common with theirs.

Not a surprise that we get more pitching prospects. I wonder, if we will ever pick up a catching prospect or develop one that can play at the major league level.

Obviously you have a problem with guys succeeding if you include the Jaxx staff as part of that group. Honestly, it wouldn't bother me too much if our minor league teams weren't successful if it meant the Cubs were able to get two succesful position players a year from our farm system. As I've said before, maybe two-five years from now we'll be popping up prospects left and right who are major league ready. Who knows? But for a team that has been ranked fairly high over the last few years not to produce position players, I have a problem with that. Didn't mean to offend you, just offering my opinion. It's not offensive, I just view it from a different perspective. I know how hard the Jaxx coaching staff works with their players, whether it be in regards to fielding, hitting or pitching. The coaching staff works very hard at fundamentals and preparing the guys for their next location, whether it be at AAA, the Major Leagues or even a demotion or winter ball. And I agree with you, it's not about the win/loss records but the talent that the system gets to the Major Leagues. I just know what I have heard from guys that have gone through the current staff and from other scouts and people through Jackson have said. I'm not a player but the Jaxx have a great staff. I would never question the work ethic of our minor league coaches, instructors, etc. And I'm not placing blame on one level; but I place responsibility on coaches, scouts, individual players, instructors, etc. within the entire system.

Obviously you have a problem with guys succeeding if you include the Jaxx staff as part of that group. Honestly, it wouldn't bother me too much if our minor league teams weren't successful if it meant the Cubs were able to get two succesful position players a year from our farm system. As I've said before, maybe two-five years from now we'll be popping up prospects left and right who are major league ready. Who knows? But for a team that has been ranked fairly high over the last few years not to produce position players, I have a problem with that. Didn't mean to offend you, just offering my opinion.

I find it very interesting how quick you are to deflect criticism away from Dusty and his role in the failings, pointing out that it's Jim's fault for giving him bad players, but then you blame minor league managers, coaches and instructors, when all they have to work with are the people Jim and the other personel people provide for them. You shouldn't find it interesting. I just fail to see what is accomplished in adding on to 100 posts of Dusty's failings. He has failed miserably, to me, and I don't know if it would please you to see me on a daily basis me criticizing Baker when I've done so this year. As I have said time and time and time again, the entire organization has failed and I don't just pick one person and jump down on him. I guess today was the day I chose to blame our minor league instructors for our lack of producing major league talent (position players). By the way, whose job is it to bring major league talent to the Cubs? If I've missed someone to criticize please let me know.

I have a huge problem with our minor league managers, coaches and instructors. Over the past few years, it appears to me the guys brought up just aren't ready to play. You don't develop guys in the majors, they should be ready to contribute when they arrive. For example, is there any reason why Dubois was still getting poor jumps and misreading fly balls? I mean it's not like he came up with only two years of pro ball under his belt. Is there a reason why Choi's and Patterson's swings weren't corrected or improved by the time they came to Chicago?

Away from Billy Wagner. How come CPatt? NM, don't know what I was looking at hehe, 24 mill seems high. The 3 in conjunction with the 24 is the important part. Remember Remmy. That has a nice ring to it. I think he's worth it...dude is only 34...hasn't had an ERA above 2.5 in 4 years...last three I think the average is under 2.0... Is he the only thing we need? not by a long shot....but he makes it an 8 inning game. Heck...Matt Lawton is getting 7.75 Mill... For Comparision...Rivera is getting 10.5 Mill, Izzy is 8.2, Foulke is getting 7.5, .... 8 for Wagner doesn't seem out of line at all....heck, maybe we could say we couldn't afford Neifi because of the expense. If you use that money on a closer and not on offense, then you'll be paying your closer an average of $8 million for only 20-25 saves a season.

I agree. This is why I like the Jays, they actually play kids from their own farm system....what a concept. First you have to develop kids within your own farm system before you play them ,which I think the Cubs have done a poor job of doing. If the Cubs could start producing guys similar to guys in the Blue Jays, Braves, Twins, etc. system then I'm all for letting them play. It would be nice if we could start producing guys like Barmes, Tavarez, Bay, Duffy, etc. I currently see very few in our system that could be a success like these guys. Well, I have hope in Murton only because he didn't come through the Cub system.

Are you saying you wouldn't trade him if you could get a more productive player that plays another position in return? I'm for any trade that will improve the team.

Why do the Cubs have to have great production out of the catcher's position vs. the outfield or SS? The Cardinals and Astros have shown the last few years that you can be a successful offense without an offensive productive catcher. In my opinion, although I like Barrett's bat, he's far from untouchable.

Are you guys saying Barrett is an untouchable? I would have no problem trading him if you're able to get value in return. But I feel the need to repeat that it was David Kaplan with that thought.

Man, some of you take this September stuff too seriously. Any of you football fans? I don't generally watch a lot of baseball in September if the Cubs aren't in it, since it's football season. Okay, so you give Murton and Cedeno 25 starts in September and they do well. Does that mean you only pursue two outfielders instead of three in the off-season? If Cedeno does well, do you automatically give him the SS job next year? What if they do well in September then bust in spring training? I can see it in Milwaukee or Pittsburgh where they have seemed to get good, ready to play young guys like Bay, Duffy, Weeks, Hall, etc. But I'm not sure I'd put Cedeno or Murton in that class yet. Call me a cynic, but I am not impressed with our development of young position players in the minors. I could name the laundry list of players over the years to back up my doubt, but at least I'm hopeful in Murton only because he wasn't developed in the Cub system. I think Murton and Cedeno should be on the 25-man roster, but if we start them both next year, I'm telling you that would mean a bad offseason for the Cubs.

I think guys like Hank Aaron, LaTroy Hawkins and Willie Randolph would disagree with your statement.

Bradley does have talent. I just would rather start getting guys without question marks. As for Kent, I'll pass on the 38 year-old. I can't stomach the number of slow grounders getting through the right side because Kent couldn't get to the ball while Lee is holding someone on. And I would hate to see the number of balls hit up the middle because Kent is compensating by playing closer to the first base side. We must improve our infield defense next year. Cedeno (if he's the choice) might have to cover thirty yards between the ARam and Kent.

Dusty shouldn't have platooned Walker as much as he did in the 1st place. Walker has been the 3rd best hitter on this team, yet he is being platooned for Perez? Dumb move to begin with. To have an effective platoon, you need one hitter to hit good one LH'ers and one hitter to hit good against RH'ers. The platoon backfires when one hitter hits better against both LH'ers and RH'ers as Walker does, then you're costing the team by having the lesser player out there. Regardless of the defensive advantage of Perez, the difference in offense for Walker dwarfs that. I think Walker was platooned with earlier in the season to give his knee some rest since it wasn't 100%. At least that's what Baker said. I could understand it for the first month or so after he returned, but I didn't understand him being platooned after the ASB.

I somewhat agree with you. But in the land of make believe where Nomar would've been able to play 140 games, Neifi would've only seen limited action, especially at the plate. I wouldn't have had a big problem with him starting every now and then to spell Nomar (those two words may never be placed together again). If Patterson had even performed decently this year, then Hairston, and not Perez, would've platooned with Walker against lefties earlier in the year. Dusty usually won't platoon real good to great players unless they are hurt or older. But hopefully Hendry won't re-sign Nomar in the off-season and Walker can remain healthy so that Neifi's at-bats will be minimal -- that is, if the Cubs really do re-sign Perez.

Why do you think Perez will be the starting shortstop next year? Read the very first post in this thread. It said the Cubs are likely to not re-sign Nomar, and they'll probably bring back Neifi. I did read it. I read it to mean they'll bring back Neifi in the same way they brought him back in 2005, as a backup. If Neifi returns to back up Nomar the predictable result is that Neifi will be the co-starter and not actually a backup at all, just as in 2005. I don't think Nomar can be counted on to be an everyday player anymore. I know this is a five page thread, but I said earlier that I don't think Nomar should be re-signed. I have no problem with Perez as a 25th man, but if Perez is signed, they better not have Hairston and Macias, too. They all do the same thing and none of them very well.

Why do you think Perez will be the starting shortstop next year? Read the very first post in this thread. It said the Cubs are likely to not re-sign Nomar, and they'll probably bring back Neifi. I did read it. I read it to mean they'll bring back Neifi in the same way they brought him back in 2005, as a backup.

When you sign a horrible player to back up a known injury risk you are taking a foolish gamble. A lot of us here on this message board knew Perez was very likely to get a whole lot of playing time. Now if he were Cal Ripken's backup that would be different. Which is my central question? Does Perez get the blame or Hendry/Baker for being stupid enough to think that Nomar would be healthy? We all knew Neifi was going to be bad offensively. And I hate the fact that it sounds like I'm defending this scrub, but Neifi is being Neifi, which I'm trying to figure out why there has been lots of threads created about him when we all knew he was horrible. Maybe I'm burned out from posting since March that our outfield had the potential to be horrible, even if Patterson put up his short career numbers. And I could go on and on about how bad Perez was going to be. I guess I spent a lot of time talking about this horrible lineup all season that I'm almost immune to it.

He may have an affordable option, but he may not fit into Hendry's strategy for 2006. I think his option should be picked up , and then he should be dealt in the offseason. Hendry may view it as he can get more for him now, so he may deal him before September 1. We don't really have any in house options for 2B that could step in right away and produce on a level that Baker/Hendry would be comfortable with, unless they want to start Hairston. I can't see Hendry dealing Walker unless there is an obvious fill in. And you hit the nail on the head. Having Hairston around does give Hendry the ability to deal Walker. Is Hairston better than Walker? Of course not. Is Hairston servicable at 2B? Yes, he is. Could Walker net us something in a trade? I believe so. I think the net-net could be positive. At the very least, it should be explored. I do believe that Hendry will try hard to get Soriano in the offseason, or if he signs Furcal, could even convince Nomar to play 2B, despite the reports today that Nomar wouldn't sign a 3/4 year $27M deal with San Diego last offseason because they wanted him to play 2B. Unfortunately, Soriano's outstanding .317 OBP would look great to Hendry.

We are out of the race, so if Murton struggles against righties just keep playing him anyway. At this point any AB that goes to Holla is a waste. He ought to be DFA'd, he sucks and Dusty doesn't even play him anymore. Lawton and Burnitz should be traded immediately. Finish the season with Patterson/Hairston/Murton in the OF, and hopefully Pie somewhere in the mix. Please, please no Pie until September of 2006. At this point, I wouldn't mind seeing Patterson getting only spot starts the rest of the way. Ideally, I'd like him playing winter ball somewhere. I wouldn't mind seeing Hairston the everyday starter in cf next year, if, and only if, the Cubs are able to use money and trades to get two stud corner outfielders.

His .281 OBP outside of April is tied for 40th out of 44 SS with 100 PA's. He's bad compared to everyone. Why do you keep dropping April off? Wasn't it part of this season? 23 games to be exact of which Neifi played in 21. So far his numbers for August are matching his April numbers. Maybe he should start months that start in "A"? Notice how it's generally a pick and choose around here? There have only been a few people on here mention that Lee is hitting around .280 since the middle of June. But because of his great first half, we should just ignore that his career numbers don't suggest that that's the real Lee. Yet, we rely on career numbers for Perez. I don't know what ticks me off more, me sounding as if I'm defending a scrub like Perez or the bias shown by some of certain Cub players. Call it picking and choosing if you like, but the fact is that Neifi's April was a fluke, and showing what he's done outside that month(which is closer to his career norms away from Coors) is probably a better indication of what he will do in the future, since we're talking about next year. Not many people have mentioned Lee dropping off. I don't see what the point is. I haven't seen any threads discussing Lee's future production with the team, it's not like people are analyzing his numbers often and conveniently leaving it out. I brought up Lee because one or two posters were criticized earlier in the month for suggesting trading Lee in the offseason due to his unlikliness to hit the way he did the first half of the season based on his career numbers. I could've sworn a couple of people who criticized the proposed trade are the ones talking about Perez's career numbers. Perez's offensive numbers stink, as we knew they would based on his career numbers. But the same must then be said of Lee, too; triple crown threat or not. As I said, you can't pick and choose. Lee's post ASB average is closer to his career norms than his numbers for the first three months. So, to me, anyone wanting to deal Lee while his value this high has a very good case.

Neifi Perez is horrible with the bat. But to his credit, his lack of offense is more noticeable in a crappy lineup like we've had to trot out every day this year. Had we gotten good offensive production all year from the lf, cf, and rf positions, I don't think his offense would be addressed as it has been on this thread and the dozens of others throughout the season. And I don't see why there needs to be a comparison to Womack. Perez was never, ever signed by the Cubs to be a starter. The Cardinals and the Yankees signed Womack to be a starter.

His .281 OBP outside of April is tied for 40th out of 44 SS with 100 PA's. He's bad compared to everyone. Why do you keep dropping April off? Wasn't it part of this season? 23 games to be exact of which Neifi played in 21. So far his numbers for August are matching his April numbers. Maybe he should start months that start in "A"? Notice how it's generally a pick and choose around here? There have only been a few people on here mention that Lee is hitting around .280 since the middle of June. But because of his great first half, we should just ignore that his career numbers don't suggest that that's the real Lee. Yet, we rely on career numbers for Perez. I don't know what ticks me off more, me sounding as if I'm defending a scrub like Perez or the bias shown by some of certain Cub players.