Outshined_One

I wonder if MLB will allow teams to trade draft picks in the near future? This seems to be a step in that direction.

I'm up and down on it. On the up side, it's been a really arbitrary process. The designation of FAs tends to have no rhyme or reason. How certain guys get designated A,B, or C has never been adequately explained. Remember Matt Clement? I never understood why he wasn't a Type A FA given his success compared to some of the other bums who were given the Type A designation that year. Also, to the Cubs' benefit, because they have a high draft pick, they will have a much better selection of players because of the elimination of the sandwich picks. Granted, they won't have any extra picks, which stinks, but their current picks will be a good step up. Finally, in terms of good things, the Cubs won't be in a situation like in past seasons when they went out and acquired a number of players, losing draft picks in the process. If they want to go out and make a splash in free agency, they won't have to worry about losing multiple draft picks in the process. And now for the bad things... Naturally, the Cubs won't get any compensation for losing guys like Juan Pierre and (hopefully not) Aramis Ramirez. That's problematic. On a bit of a strange note, this could end up hurting the quality of the draft for the foreseeable future if there is a slotting system. High school guys will no longer be able to slip into late rounds and end up getting a ton of money thrown at them way down in the draft (Huseby, Adenhart, etc). These guys will be more reluctant to sign since they will no longer be able to get that nice payday despite being an 8th rounder or whatever. I think this may very well end up increasing the overall quality of college baseball. I'm sure there are a few things I missed, but this is definitely food for thought.

I'm helpful like that. 8)

Anyone else think Beane fired Macha because he wanted to keep Ron Washington from going to Texas?

I just think it's interesting that bunts and the hit-and-run are "useless." In the vast majority of circumstances, they are pretty much useless. Bunts can be good. Guys who bunt for hits can be really effective at getting on base, can draw in the infielders, and so on. I think very few guys in baseball should do that with any regularity, but in that context, it can be highly effective. The same goes for the suicide squeeze and sacrifice bunts in general. If you only need one run to tie or win, that's a good approach to take. Also, pitchers who are terrible hitters often do more by bunting than they would by swinging. The problem the majority of people have with bunting is that it is counter-productive a lot of the time. Sacrifice bunts have a few problems with them. Basically speaking, you are taking the bat out of the hands of a hitter (even if he is Neifi-level bad), sacrificing an out to move a runner over one base, are only marginally increasing the likelihood that a runner will score, and reducing the scoring opportunities you could have in that inning by sacrificing that out. Plus, there is always the possibility of ending up with a runner on first and one out because a guy somehow screwed up the bunt. You want your offense to score as many runs as possible, which means giving your hitters the most opportunities to get on base. I have a huge problem with the hit & run. It might seemingly make sense in certain circumstances (slow runner at first, likely double play candidate, etc), but it is really, really stupid. You are operating under the assumption that the hitter will make contact with a pitch in such a way that the lead runner will not be thrown out. However, as we have seen so many times over these past years, guys will almost inevitably swing at a really bad pitch on a hit and run. At best, the guy fouls off the pitch. At worst, it's a strike 'em out, throw 'em out and you just wasted two outs. It does not succeed often enough to justify implementing it on even a remotely regular basis. Why is there even any problem with that approach? If a manager makes sure his players can effectively hit, field, and pitch while creating favorable matchups and keeping everyone healthy, isn't that a good thing? In most cases, yes.

I thought for sure you'd write "Joe Buck is the real James T. Kirk". ...IIIIIIIIIIIIII'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!! *Dramatic music plays*

I called it! :D

Joe Buck Molests Collies

Joe Buck and Tim McCarver disgust me. They're such friggin' homers that it's a joke.

Ouch on the non-balk call.

And who's to say that an invisible midget didn't sneak into Colon's room every night in 2006 and whacked his shoulder repeatedly with a hammer? The pitcher overuse and future injury are strongly correlated. There is a ton of evidence that supports the idea that trotting guys out every five days and making them throw 120 pitches will most likely result in a serious injury. Making 10 year old kids throw curveballs will most likely wreck their arms. Having bad mechanics will almost always hurt a pitcher. There are always a few exceptions to these rules, yes. There is no formula that will work every single time in proving when and where a pitcher will sustain an injury. Some pitchers are better conditioned than others. Some guys will be able to withstand more abuse than others. That does not mean we should ignore this possibility; not by any stretch of the imagination. The human body can only withstand so much punishment before it suffers a breakdown of some sort. Managers and pitching coaches should not test these limits. They should not ignore the strong possibility that a player could suffer a breakdown. For these reasons, we should worry about Zambrano. If he is one of the very few freakish guys who will manage to withstand that kind of abuse and still maintain the same level of talent and consistency, awesome. But if he isn't, then there are enough warning signs to merit a lot of concern for his future. If the new (well, with Larry back, old) coaching staff does not monitor those warning signs and acts accordingly, it will be one of the absolute worst things this organization has ever done. It will simply be inexcuseable.

As I've said in other places, guys back before they lowered the mound and constricted the strike zone may have thrown 300+ innings in a year, but they threw a heck of a lot less pitches per inning in the process.

I believe Kuroda is 31/32 years old. He's not getting the same hype as Matsuzaka, but he could be a nice option. I've been advocating the idea that the Cubs should pick up two starting pitchers next season, a 1/2 to complement Z and a 4/5 to get some consistency in the back end. Kuroda would likely be cheap and effective enough to merit being the 4/5 this team needs, imo.

If the deal was Pie and Hill, I'd go for it. The "for starters" line concerns me however. Ditto and ditto. Thirded.

This game indeed reminded me of that insane Indy-TB game from two or three years ago.

Don't blow it plz.

Oh my God

Dayum.

Brian Urlacher is PO'd.

What in the holy hell.

I feel like I'm watching the Cubs get shut down by a soft-tossing lefty with Angel Hernandez behind the dish.

I remember the roughing the kicker call and Berrian just getting bumped off his route, but what else was there? This most recent hatchet job. How can you NOT see Dockett was down when you're right in front of the pile?

Terrible, terrible job by the refs tonight. It's no excuse for the Bears, but this crew is just awful tonight.

No illegal contact? Wow.

It's been that way since the end of the third quarter, yet Lovie doesn't seem to get it. :x