dalgreen

I didn't either, as I didn't know Lee's shoulder had been bothering him. But regarding Barrett, part of the offense's problem is over the last three weeks Barrett has been hitting like Blanco.

And that is what I didn't know -- if he had to go through irrevocable or revocable waivers.

I know he had too much service time just to be sent down, so he had to first clear waivers. How did he do that? Generally after July 31st, trades that occur after that time must be done with guys that have cleared waivers. And I know in the past, teams have had to wait days for guys to clear waivers. Can anyone explain Patterson's process or offer up a suggestion on what happened? Did he clear waivers in an hour or was he already on the list? And why didn't any team claim him?

He was set up and in for the fastball - Novoa missed location. But it was stupid to even call for a fastball in that 0-2 situation. He had looked bad against breaking pitches last night. And why did Rusch throw fastball after fastball after fastball? That was stupid. All year I've been wondering if Barrett calls the pitches or does he get them from Rothschild. I don't think it was stupid. Barrett wanted the pitch so high that he was almost entirely out of his crouch. I thought, at 0-2, it was smart to bust him off the plate a little with a high, tight fastball. Novoa could then wipe him out more easily (in theory) with a pitch away. Novoa missed about as badly as you can. I apologize, I should've been clearer. The call itself wasn't stupid, but calling it with Novoa at that time was, in my opinion. Novoa had missed location on his fastball with Giles the at-bat previous. Not just on the Giles' triple, but on the pitches previous. Barrett was set up down and in on Giles and Novoa missed up. Now how Giles was able to hit that pitch at 5'9", I don't know, but he had missed his spots previously.

You'd think after ten years of getting "banged" up after making diving catches, he'd learn to play three steps deeper. I do love how he dives after the ball is in his glove.[/i]

He is the best Cub beat writer. Did you notice in his column regarding Patterson that he said Patterson politely declined to comment? But Sullivan wrote that Patterson took his demotion hard and didn't comment to reporters? Amazing how they can have a totally different take.

He was set up and in for the fastball - Novoa missed location. But it was stupid to even call for a fastball in that 0-2 situation. He had looked bad against breaking pitches last night. And why did Rusch throw fastball after fastball after fastball? That was stupid. All year I've been wondering if Barrett calls the pitches or does he get them from Rothschild.

That's really pathetic and not what this board needs. With all of the new guests coming to do Q&A's, this is exactly the kind of stuff we don't need them to see. A player is admitting he had something bothering him so you call him a "coward." Was Lee a "coward" also for talking about how his shoulder was bothering him? Even if you were being sarcastic there's no call for that. I have no reason not to believe Michael Barrett, but I'm sick of seeing Cub player who are in this seemingly "in" club not being able to get criticized, but no one cleans up on the rampant criticisms of Perez (I'm guilty), Macias (I'm guilty), Remlinger, Baker, Hendry, Hollandsworth, Wood, etc. We don't need to see a lot of what's on the board.

Pardon the expression, but if its anything like "Smear the Queer", then yes. (Basically, a kid runs around with a ball until he gets flattened. The ball is then tossed up in the air and the process begins again. Sometimes it involved teams a la rugby; however, sometimes is was twenty against one.) We called that "Kill the man with the Ball"

I've seen that, don't know what it's called. I thought pepper was a game where you practice rundowns. That's pickle. That's why it's called "getting in a pickle." I never heard it called "pickle". We always called it "pepper". That's what we called it, too. Maybe there are a combination of games and they were all lumped together and called "pepper".

That would be a great question to e-mail Len and Bob tonight. Or a great question to ask JC.

That would be a great question to e-mail Len and Bob tonight.

Would you have said any of same things to the Marlins in 03, or the Astros when they fired their manager and went on a tear? Me thinks not. Teams have been known to turn around when managers get fired, and I'm sure the team is sick of Dusty's moronic lineups he trots out their daily. They might fight better for a manager with at least half a brain. Come on. Do you really think the Astros would've won had they not gotten Beltan and if the Marlins didn't bring up Cabrera? In 2003, we won the division because Houston choked and because we got Lofton and Ramirez who were better than playing Goodwin and Harris. So, no, the manager alone won't make a difference.

Let's hope your prediction comes true. I for one would celebrate if that happened. There's the post of the year. Hoping for a Cub loss. I hate Perez, but I don't hope he goes 3 for 55 just so he might sit. Hoping for a loss is just as bad as players quitting. I'd sacrifice one game if it meant that Dusty would be fired, you bet. I'm sure most of the posters on this board would as well. So, you've given up on the wild-card? I haven't. But I know we can't throw away one-loss if we still have the wild-card in our minds. Now if you've given up on the season, then one loss doesn't matter. Where did I say that? How could you have possibly come to that conclusion? No, I'm not giving up on the season. But if you told me that a Cubs loss tonight would lead to Dusty Baker being fired, I would hope for a Cubs loss. That doesn't mean that I'm giving up. On the contrary, that means that I still have hope. In regards to your previous post to me... no, Dusty's not the only problem. But he is the biggest problem. He keeps putting guys in positions to fail. Neifi leading off, Remlinger facing lefties, etc. Get a guy who knows his player's abilities and this team will be so much better. My point is usually the wild card winner can come down to the final game or final two games of the season. One loss could mean the difference between making the wild card and missing out. So, giving away a game just to have a manager fired doesn't make sense if you still think we have a shot at the wild card.

As much as I hate the players on this team, I still think we can win the wild-card, especially if we get some players. But if Lee has to be out of the lineup, just what is a good lineup with these make believe players we have (outside of Walker and Ramirez)?

Let's hope your prediction comes true. I for one would celebrate if that happened. There's the post of the year. Hoping for a Cub loss. I hate Perez, but I don't hope he goes 3 for 55 just so he might sit. Hoping for a loss is just as bad as players quitting. I'd sacrifice one game if it meant that Dusty would be fired, you bet. I'm sure most of the posters on this board would as well. So, you've given up on the wild-card? I haven't. But I know we can't throw away one-loss if we still have the wild-card in our minds. Now if you've given up on the season, then one loss doesn't matter.

I think you are over simplifying the problem. Dusty is one problem, I don't care if you think he's a big problem, but he's still just one problem. We need guys who can hit and know how to play the game. Or do you really think Burnitz is capable of having an MVP year under a new manager? We need players. A new manager means this team will still suck just suck with a new manager.

If you were a contending team, aren't there better and less expensive pitchers that you'd try and trade for than Maddux? So far, Maddux has been another Hendry gamble that has failed.

Let's hope your prediction comes true. I for one would celebrate if that happened. There's the post of the year. Hoping for a Cub loss. I hate Perez, but I don't hope he goes 3 for 55 just so he might sit. Hoping for a loss is just as bad as players quitting.

I'll take that bet. Funny, how a lot of people have already forgotten 2002 when some swore that with Baylor gone the Cubs would right the ship. If a manager gets fired, you also need to get new players.

lee, ramirez, and who else? walker? just curious. Yes, Walker. I hope you didn't think I was talking about Hollandsworth or Burnitz. I still love the Cubs, but I don't know if the people who are most vocal about this team got suckered into thinking back in March that this team was going to be good. Many of us saw the holes in this team, that's why some of us aren't ready to jump off of a building. We have three freakin' hitters on this team, that's it. I don't care about batting order that much since you're already giving up 12-15 outs before the game starts. Barrett and Burnitz are going to be mediocre at best no matter where in the order they hit. Hairston should be at the top of the order, but even if he gets on base three times, if he, Lee and Ramirez are the only ones getting on base with no one else getting on base or hitting them in, then you're talking about 2-3 runs a game. Hence, the problems.

Dusty doesn't swing the bat or throw the ball...He is certainly deserving of his share of the blame, but how many two out runs have we given up in recent weeks or failed to come through with clutch hitting? You're right, he doesn't get all of the blame. But Dusty picks the guys that will swing the bat and throw the ball. Leaving Prior in there too long when he was getting knocked around in the 5th. Batting Perez 2nd. Using Macias as the first PH off the bench. Those are bad managerial decisions. It's more likely that players will get "clutch" hits when your best players are on the field, not Perez, Macias, etc. But this is the point I don't get. Who else should he have played today? Okay, you could argue Barrett, but he's like 4 for his last 50. And changing the order is something people suggest but I don't know how that would change anything significantly. If you hit Lee 8th, I don't think he'd go 0-4. Either you're a good hitter or you're not. We have three guys on this team who I consider quality hitters. That's it.

Just wanted to get some thoughts from people on this subject. Hopefully this won't turn into an anti-Baker, anti-Hendry, anti-Wood, etc. thread. But, in general, if you were a pitching coach or if you ran an organization, would your philosophy be for pitchers to pitch to contact or avoid it? I know power pitchers are more fun to watch, but I think I lean toward the finesse type of pitcher like Lieber (at his peak) and Maddux (at his peak) vs. Nolan Ryan, or Bartolo Colon. I'm just using these guys as examples and you could use your own, but I'm just asking what your philosophy is. It has always seemed to me that if you pitch to contact, with good stuff, more often than not the hitters will hit your pitch. Power pitchers look great when they aren't getting hit, but when a team is patient, they throw a lot of pitches and give up lots of walks. Ideally, I'd have a mixture, but if I could only have one kind of pitcher, I think I would lean toward the finesse pitcher.

Firing Dusty would be a big start in the right direction. More so than getting better players? I don't see why it's so hard for people to at least lay blame at a ratio of 1/3 Baker, 1/3 players, 1/3 Hendry. The manager gets too much credit in baseball and too much blame. Do you really give Garner credit for the Astros resurgence? I think he's just as bad of a manager as he was in Detroit. Did he get better in Houston or did he get better players?

I think Dusty expected the Cubs to get 7 next inning so Prior could get the win :roll: It really doesn't matter. The game was over when the Braves got three. We can be optimistic all we want, but we were only scoring 2 runs with Lee in the lineup, so being down 3, or 6 or 25 it's all the same.