dalgreen

Heaven help us if he strikes out in his first at-bat.

My prediction: Marquis is eventually sent to the bullpen. He causes a fuss much in the same way that he did in Atlanta when sent to the bullpen. This pisses off LaRussa and Duncan and he's left off the playoff roster.

For clarification, I never said he wouldn't make it. I just asked why would it be out of the realm of possibility that he might not make it? I don't know if he will or if he won't, but I'm not going to swear that he'll make it or not. He may become an everyday player or he may be a career 4th or 5th outfielder, I don't know. I don't see why Steve Stone's opinion is wrong -- it's an opinion. However, I do remember him one time saying something similar about Kelton. I also never said he won't ever be able to hit righties. I just said in his limited at-bats, he hasn't hit righties very hard. I can handle hitting into outs if you're hitting the ball hard. Although I dislike a lot of Baker's moves this year, I think he made a good move by starting him off against lefties only to begin his career. Kelton never had Murton's plate discipline. And the notion that you need power at the corner OF positions to win in is a myth. The Yankees won 4 WS with guys like Chad Curtis and Gerald Williams in LF. And the White Sox are doing pretty damn well with Scott Podsednik in LF. Given the steroid situation, it's likely that power #s are going to continue to decrease over the next several years, making it much more of a balanced game. If the Cubs were smart--which is open to question--they'd stick Murton at #2 in the lineup and leave him alone. I have never bought into the power position myth, either. Heck, I was infuriated back in 1989 when Palmeiro was traded and Frey and Zimmer said he would never hit for power and you can't have guys not hitting homers in two power positions (1B and LF). Regarding Murton, power shouldn't be addressed. I just don't know why it's deemed impossible that he won't ever be an everyday player. He might be, but, again, maybe he won't. A player doesn't have a bad career if he's a lifetime 4th or 5th outfielder.

Calling up rookies to face only lefties is one of my pet peeves. There are just not enough starting LHP's to make it worthwhile for the team or the rookie. The Braves generally don't call up rookies unless they are prepared to let them face both lefties and righties, which IMO is the smart thing to do, unless the team believes the rookie in question will never amount to more than a part-time player. I don't think you're right about the Braves. When Johnson was brought up, he didn't face lefties, and I think Franceur didn't face righties. Anyway, going back to the days of Michael Tucker and Jermaine Dye, I know they didn't immediately face lefties and righties, respectively.

That's all good and true, but where do the Cubs make up for the power? Nomar won't be back, and you're unlikely to replace him with a power hitter. Ditto Walker. Patterson/Pie the same. And god knows who will be in RF. Too many holes w/o power. I wouldn't be so sure about Nomar. In fact, I'd be surprised if he isn't back next year. Either way, he probably isn't going to hit 30+ homers. Like I said in a previous post, I think you need three legitimate power hitters. There are Lee and Ramirez, and we need one more. On the other hand, we could get by with just two if there are 3 or 4 15-20 homer guys around them. Barrett is one, Nomar another, Patterson another, Walker probably another. Of course on the other other hand, the Cubs have hit a ton of home runs last year and this year, and what good has it done? What we have been sorely lacking is OBP guys, like Matt Murton. I'll take a guy who hits 10 homers with 35-40 doubles and an OBP of .350+ over a hacking slugger. I'm not saying Matt would do that, but power really isn't our problem. I'd like to see more line-drive alley to alley hitters who know the strike zone. Too many times over the past two seasons we routinely lose when we don't hit home runs. Relying on the long ball, to me, is just as bad as when a basketball team relies on hitting threes to win games.

For clarification, I never said he wouldn't make it. I just asked why would it be out of the realm of possibility that he might not make it? I don't know if he will or if he won't, but I'm not going to swear that he'll make it or not. He may become an everyday player or he may be a career 4th or 5th outfielder, I don't know. I don't see why Steve Stone's opinion is wrong -- it's an opinion. However, I do remember him one time saying something similar about Kelton. I also never said he won't ever be able to hit righties. I just said in his limited at-bats, he hasn't hit righties very hard. I can handle hitting into outs if you're hitting the ball hard. Although I dislike a lot of Baker's moves this year, I think he made a good move by starting him off against lefties only to begin his career.

Hmmm, I guess Steve Stone and the Red Sox probably wouldn't have much use for Tony Gwynn. Not even close. You must only remember the heavy-set Gwynn in his 30s. He owns 5 gold gloves and has 319 career stolen bases, topping out at 56 in 1987 (2nd in the league). You would think by now that Cub fans would get off the "every kid might turn out to be Miguel Cabrera or Albert Pujols" funk by now. Three years ago people were swearing that Nic Jackson and David Kelton would be all-stars in the major leagues. Okay, I'm exaggerating but you understand my point. Why is it out of the realm of possiblity that Murton just might not make it? Yes, his sample size against righties is small, but I also look at how balls are hit, and he hasn't hit too many of his outs hard against righties. One thing is abundantly clear, you can tell from his plate approach he wasn't brought up in the Cub organization.

You forgot to mention that Chief Illiniwek's costume more closely resembles something that would be worn by the Sioux- hated enemies of the Illini. I understand the argument that people are offended and all that. On the other hand, it seems to me that there should be a way to honor the memory of the now extinct Illini tribe in a way that celebrates their good qualities without having to abandon tradition. Some ideas: Get an authentic costume. Dressing Chief Illiniwek as a Sioux is too generic and therefore not much better than the Cleveland Wahoo. Perform a dance that might actually have been performed by a Native American rather than by a gymnast. Require undergrads to take a course to learn about who the Illini were. I believe it's possible to honor the Native people of Illinois for who they were without altering 140 years of tradition. The Boy Scouts, for example, use a lot of Native American symbolism/ imagery/ legends in a very respectful way. Because I was once a Boy Scout I've always thought of Native Americans as reluctant warriors that fought because they had to. Don't we risk forgeting that if we eliminate all these names that are deemed offensive? Sure we could pay tribute by building statues or museums but more people go to sports events. How many people had ever heard of the Choctaws before reading this thread? Excellent ideas. You just left one out. How about having a 100% Native American doing an authentic dance? My question remains, how many of the people who don't think anyone should find mascots offensive would take the time to go to a Native American museum on campus? My guess is not many, yet they'll tell others that a mascot is to honor a people. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Again, I don't think many find a lot of the nicknames offensive, but it's the buffoonish (is that a word?) mascots/logos that's offensive.

Is this speculation or fact? I am not trying to start a whole new debate on this situation, just curious if this has been proven/discussed at any point. It's fact based on speculation. Just joking. It's only a guess, but I do know for sure the University of Illinois and Southeast Missouri State University have never gotten "permission" from tribal groups. And, although it's speculation, I'm fairly certain that that is the case in the majority of cases. Particularly since FSU is usually the only school I ever hear able to claim they have received permission from a tribal group. I also remember (I think) hearing that is the only school who has permission. I remember HBO's Real Sports doing a segment on this and they said it, too -- again, I think that's what they said. But, again, for schools like St. John's , Miami (OH), Stanford and Marquette (I'm missing a lot more to change their nickname must mean they didn't get permission for Native mascots.

You're right. It won't accomplish anything. Here's a better idea then some petition campaign...by the way, has a manager or coach ever been fired because of a petition? I digress. Here's a better answer, buy stock in the Tribune Co. They're more likely to listen to stockholders than anonymous people who surf on the net. Do you guys really think Hendry and MacPhail haven't heard the, "Fire Dusty" song and dance from talk-shows, letters, e-mail, or just walking in and out of Wrigley? Interesting Idea. http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=TRB This is a link to the current Tribune Co. Stock price. I think it would be interesting if Tim could buy some stock, maybe as little as a share or two, with NSBB funds, in the name of NSBB...He could either incorporate NSBB and get funds from his group of investors (us) or he could take enough $ from premium memberships each month to buy one share or so in his own name and start accumulating them...each year we could then send an NSBB member to the sharholder meetings....the possiblities are endless. I understand what you're saying, but you have to remember the Tribune Co. is not in business because of the Cubs. Their main interest, and the main interest of their stockholders, is in the business of mass media. So, I don't know how good of an idea it would be to buy stock in a company just because of interest in a small piece of what the company owns. Honestly, I really don't care about KPLR-tv in St. Louis or Los Angeles Times or the other tv and newspapers they own. And if we bought stock, we would have to actually care more about that than the Cubs.

It's already been tested. The University of Illinois decided to not bring Chief Illiniwek to the Final Four last season for fear that it would "be a distraction". That's the word from my alma mater and not me. And Chief Illiniwek has not made an appearance at a post-season basketball game (other than home NIT games) since 1989.

The NCAA is going to have quite a few problems getting this taken care of. I don't see this lasting, especially since it won't fully take effect until after the BCS bowls are completed in 2006. The first "meaningful" test will be March Madness next year. What's the point of posting her letter? I'm sure you could find a Seminole who would write another letter stating how important this is to them and how they are offended by the use of the mascot. I don't think this issue is 90% for and 10% against using tribes as symbols. And I wish people would stop using the exception and treating it as the norm. The majority of schools never even asked permission nor invited the tribal council to meet regarding using Natives as logos/mascots. So I guess this makes the people for it right and institutions like St. Johns', Marquette, Miami (OH) and Stanford wrong for changing their names and mascots, huh?

You're right. It won't accomplish anything. Here's a better idea then some petition campaign...by the way, has a manager or coach ever been fired because of a petition? I digress. Here's a better answer, buy stock in the Tribune Co. They're more likely to listen to stockholders than anonymous people who surf on the net. Do you guys really think Hendry and MacPhail haven't heard the, "Fire Dusty" song and dance from talk-shows, letters, e-mail, or just walking in and out of Wrigley?

Weren't you one of the many who last offseason proclaimed, "Hendry is taking back this team" after he let Alou, Mercker and Farnsworth go? So, now it's back to being Baker's team. Hmmm... :-k

I always thought when the pitcher is in a jam, he's likely to throw the first pitch that is a pitcher's pitch and not a hitter's pitch. You might get a fastball first pitch, but it's designed for you to get yourself out versus a hitter's fastball. He's likely to give in to you on a 1-0 count than a 0-0 count.

Whose being sent down? Seabol?

I cannot believe how much love Hendry gets as if he's done no wrong. He was 0-4 in the offseason when everyone said we needed a LF, closer, leadoff man and OBP guys. He's 0-5 if you include the need to improve the middle relief. I guess people still are revering him for the Ramirez trade while ignoring re-signing Macias (at his salary), Hollandsworth and signing of Burnitz. They both should go or they both should stay. But I'm sure the tune will slowly change once Maddux's reaches his innings. And I used to be a big Baker/Hendry fan. IMO getting rid of Hendry now would be tantamount to the firing of Dallas Green in 1987; it would set the organization back years. As we learned with Green, continuity in that spot is critical, particularly when it comes to integrating young players. Hendry's surely made mistakes, but he's shown signs of learning from them (e.g. developing a bullpen from within) and he's certainly proven to be an adept judge of young talent. As a big Dallas Green fan (hence my name), I would slightly disagree. At that time, Dallas Green was the only "baseball" guy making decisions. To prove my point is the idiots at Tribune, Co. wanted him to move down to field manager. I still think we would've made a World Series appearance had Green stayed as GM. I think now we have more "baseball" guys in the organiztion. I don't see MacPhail going from Hendry to a bad candidate like we did when hiring Jim Frey after Dallas Green. I'm just not as hopeful as others that he will change his spending habits when it comes to overvaluing and paying for veteran players. 1. Who's to say MacPhail wouldn't go along with Hendry? Those two are far more joined at the hip than Hendry and Baker. And even if MacPhail survived and Hendry didn't, MacPhail's hiring of Ed Lynch doesn't give me a lot of confidence that he'd pick a first-rate GM. 2. We agree on Dallas Green. But let's remember that his track record while GM was pretty bad except for 1984, and a lot worse than Hendry's--five losing seasons out of six years, including a last place finish in 1987, his last year. The problem with firing Green was that all of his labors with the farm system were starting to bear fruit (as we saw in 1989), and his successor was utterly incapable of taking advantage of it. I feel that there's a parallel with Hendry. The bottom line is that no one knows the abilities of the young players in the farm system better than Hendry. Trips posts! Sorry, I played poker over the weekend. Anyway, Hendry isn't the only one with a grasp of the system. The player development, Onera Finiera (spelling probably wrong) seems to be doing a good job. Back to Green: Dallas did it the right way. The 1984-1985 teams were built to win it all, and then 86-88 were supposed to be developing years. We should've gone to the Series in 84, and we were on our way in 1985 until four of our five starting pitchers went on the dl at the same time. So, I don't think anything snuck up on the Cubs. As you said, the system started to bear fruit, but Frey and then Himes ruined the organization.

I cannot believe how much love Hendry gets as if he's done no wrong. He was 0-4 in the offseason when everyone said we needed a LF, closer, leadoff man and OBP guys. He's 0-5 if you include the need to improve the middle relief. I guess people still are revering him for the Ramirez trade while ignoring re-signing Macias (at his salary), Hollandsworth and signing of Burnitz. They both should go or they both should stay. But I'm sure the tune will slowly change once Maddux's reaches his innings. And I used to be a big Baker/Hendry fan. IMO getting rid of Hendry now would be tantamount to the firing of Dallas Green in 1987; it would set the organization back years. As we learned with Green, continuity in that spot is critical, particularly when it comes to integrating young players. Hendry's surely made mistakes, but he's shown signs of learning from them (e.g. developing a bullpen from within) and he's certainly proven to be an adept judge of young talent. As a big Dallas Green fan (hence my name), I would slightly disagree. At that time, Dallas Green was the only "baseball" guy making decisions. To prove my point is the idiots at Tribune, Co. wanted him to move down to field manager. I still think we would've made a World Series appearance had Green stayed as GM. I think now we have more "baseball" guys in the organiztion. I don't see MacPhail going from Hendry to a bad candidate like we did when hiring Jim Frey after Dallas Green. I'm just not as hopeful as others that he will change his spending habits when it comes to overvaluing and paying for veteran players.

I cannot believe how much love Hendry gets as if he's done no wrong. He was 0-4 in the offseason when everyone said we needed a LF, closer, leadoff man and OBP guys. He's 0-5 if you include the need to improve the middle relief. I guess people still are revering him for the Ramirez trade while ignoring re-signing Macias (at his salary), Hollandsworth and signing of Burnitz. They both should go or they both should stay. But I'm sure the tune will slowly change once Maddux's reaches his innings. And I used to be a big Baker/Hendry fan.

Prior to yesterday, Eckstein had one walk in the last 20 games. I give the Cards their props. They are a very good team, but they've also had some luck to go with it. They looked dead until Pujols hit his solo shot off of Farnsworth, and with the 7-8-9 men coming up the stadium was dead. But of course the first three guys get hits. So freakin' Taguchi has seven homers. Go figure.

That's an old, silly and completely irrelevant argument, as Baker's been doing stupid crap like discouraging patience and starting Macias since Day One. :roll: Ok....we play more day games than any other team by far. And we havent won a World Series in 100 years. How silly....why even consider it. I've been watching players, managers, GM's, Ownership, Hall of Famers, bums, and just about everything else, go through Wrigley Field for about 40 years except.......A World Series winner. They all come and go....but one thing remains constant. Wrigley.....Bad baseball teams..... and No World Series. I don't buy that at all. Explain 1984 and 2003? I think the Cubs have had horrible management over the past fifty years....well I've only been following them since the late '70's, and I've seen the Cub organization get rid of Bill Madlock, Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, Greg Maddux, Rafael Palmeiro (okay no jokes), Dallas Green and the list goes on and on. If anyone should have folded it should've been the West Coast teams prior to expansion. In the old two divison format, the Dodgers and Giants had 2000 mile road trips every road trip except when playing the California teams. It didn't hurt their playoff runs. The Cubs just have had atrocious management over the years.

Friggin' Macias and his .296 average are killing this team! Why is he even on the roster? Nevermind that he has been nothing short of atrocious in CF, and has cost us runs. But he has a .296 AVG! I hate Macias, too, but you're going way overboard. There's a reason why he's our third string CF. That's like getting mad at a 3rd string QB having a bad game. I'd compare it more to getting mad at the 3rd String QB while the 2nd string sits on the bench. Who's the second string CF? I'm glad Burnitz finally got a night off. Burnitz should have sat a game in Philly, at the least.

I think Hollandsworth is a piece of crap. If you're going to try to get on base by swinging the bat then hit it to the right side. At least you'd contribute to the 2nd run. Sorry, I play for the full 27 outs and not 24 outs.

Friggin' Macias and his .296 average are killing this team! Why is he even on the roster? Nevermind that he has been nothing short of atrocious in CF, and has cost us runs. But he has a .296 AVG! I hate Macias, too, but you're going way overboard. There's a reason why he's our third string CF. That's like getting mad at a 3rd string QB having a bad game.

If you're trying to defend Baker, you're really grasping at straws. And you can't construct a reasonable argument for Holla playing over Matt, at least a this point. It is impossible. If Murton gets consistent AB's and is as bad as Holla has been, then things like Murton failing to move a runner might have some relevance. Please. What I said had nothing to do with Dusty Baker. Bad play is bad play. I just love how folks who despise Baker's love of veterans are the same ones who will overlook poor plays by young kids. Bad play is bad play. By the way, I believe Murton will be a good player, but right now I do think he's best suited against lefties. From what I've seen, he hasn't hit too many balls hard against right handers. I'm fine if you make outs, as long as they're hard hit outs. But I'm being critical of Murton just as I would Holla, Macias or all the other whipping boys.