TheDude

Well, Hendry ignored Pierre's atrocious 2005 and now it's biting the Cubs in the behind. It's hard to ignore .276/.326/.354. And he had an even worse OPS in 2002 with the Rockies. Pierre was anything but a sure bet. On the plus side, he's actually been good on the base paths. If Hendry had ignored Patterson's 2005 numbers he would have been vilified even more than ignoring Pierre's 2005. Pierre was a better bet than Patterson for the Cubs in 2006 and folks are telling tales if they say otherwise.

Folks tried to convince me that Jerome Williams this year would be better than Maddux, and that Williams was a worthy number three starter on a fully healthy Cubs staff. I had him as trade bait and not in the top 6 candidates for starter when healthy. That has to be the biggest one. I wanted to deal Prior for Tejada, even without Bedard. I wanted Nomar to stay, but so did a lot of folks, so that isn't really an "I told you so". On the flip-side, I'm eating crow on Pierre, though I still believe that the Cubs had to assume career norms with Pierre and not career lows across the board.

I'm the first four steps all at once.

Anyone wonder exactly how much the Mets miss Kazmir right about now? That kid is undeniable.

Gammons reported last night that his conversation with Minaya revealed that he has been going after "bad contracts" pitchers from other teams because he isn't giving away Milledge. At All. Minaya wants his team to turn into the mid-90s Yankees, and with the core of the position players under 30 still and all making noise, he's right to go after that goal. But, he also commented that trade talks haven't gone far because teams this year really don't have much in the way of bad contracts because nearly every team is making money and the desire to dump isn't as strong.

Seconded Right because acknowledging solid performances out of our favorite team's players is such a terrible thing. If you to cry and moan and emit a constant state of negativity, then enjoy yourselves. But don't criticize folks for giving a pat on the back for jobs well done.

It is difficult for GMs to do something this early in the season. Other teams know that can get better value the closer to the trade deadline they get. Hendry can ask all he wants right now and get nowhere.

I would also like to point out that Juan Pierre is "in the middle of it" just as much as any other Cub, regarding these two wins.

Just to be clear, it's 3 starts at: 23 Innings, 12 Hits Against, 1 Earned Run, 10 walks, 24 Strike Outs Exactly, in your mind, what would a pitcher have to do besides those numbers to "turn the corner"? How many starts does it take? The only disconcerting stat is the walks. And to have a WHIP near or below 1.00 (not sure if he hit any batters the last three games) for Carlos is significant.

Marshall will baffle the Nats tonight. I'm looking for three consecutive team shutouts over the Nats to spark a turn-around for the season.

If that is the value at the end of the season, then I'll cry. For now, one has to assume it improves.

How was he horrible? He was hitting .263 off of the bench, served as a good pinch runner, and didn't make any errors. He did what was asked of him, I don't know what more you would have expected from him. a .579 OPS is horrible, bench player or not Because 19 At Bats is such an ideal sample size. :?

Then how does it explain his use of the younger Cedeno? Don't know - probably speed would be his stance and the fact that Murton had been more clutch with RBI opportunities. He's faster than Murton so when Walker dropped to the 3-hole after Lee's injury he got the nod. Add in that Murton has had several 3-5 hole opportunities and one could argue Murton got the greater of the pressure spots. That's my best guess at Dusty's thought process. But for what it is worth, Cedeno's 2-hole numbers are .268/.288/.380/.668, while his 8-hole numbers are .395/.425/.526/.951. Granted they are limited splits. Ronny seems better suited at the bottom of the order and Murton at the 2-hole.

With Dusty it's not figuring it out. He knows what kind of hitter Murton is and the potential he has. For right or worng, with Dusty it's a matter of putting his players where he feels they are most comfortable, or where the splits suggest for a given match-up. Dusty has a history of easing young players (to put it politely) and he probably didn't want to put the pressure of the 2-hole on Murton. That doesn't excuse his use of Murton, as he should have gone to the 2-hole right after Lee's injury - just playing the advocate to show it doesn't have to do with 'figuring it out' if you follow Dusty's trends.

Thanks for the specifics. I'll concede the point as you explained it well. I thought you were going for a different angle originally, and without details it was worthy of a follow-up.

My broadcast of the Cubs game last night came from the Washington booth. Those guys made multiple comments about Zambrano's emotions, both for good and bad. But they both agreed they love guys that play the game with his level of enthusiasm.

Bad moves from the past absolutely have contribution to the this season. To pretend otherwise is absolutely inaccurate. It's not piling on to show how past mistakes can have lasting effects. Can you please explain to me how the Estes and Alfonseca signings of several seasons ago contribute to this season? When you analyze a baseball players performance, don't you look at what he's done historically, and how that will trend out in the future? It's the same thing here. He's historically overspent, he overspent again this year, and he's probably going to do it again in the future. I agree with your statement. But that doesn't answer the question.

Murton is the best hitter on the ballclub suited for the 2-hole. He makes fantastic contact and likely the best hit-and-run guy the Cubs have on the team. When Pierre gets on base, the chances of a successful hit-and-run with Murton shooting the ball to right and Pierre ending up on third are pretty strong.

If you go back to the first page it was actually you that stated it was not luck. But it isn't my intent to disagree with you or argue. As I stated in my prior post, citing bad luck is fine but if that's all the manager is going to cite than he deserves all the criticism he gets. So we agree on this point.

Bad moves from the past absolutely have contribution to the this season. To pretend otherwise is absolutely inaccurate. It's not piling on to show how past mistakes can have lasting effects. Can you please explain to me how the Estes and Alfonseca signings of several seasons ago contribute to this season?

Only two walks for Carlos last night. Still had a very high pitch count, but if he can drop those walks to two or less as a habit, he is going to dominate the rest of the season.

It's a solid article. Accurately points out the poor spending regarding Jones, Rusch, and Perez (as well as rehashing old spending habits that have no contribution to this season - a bit of piling on, but relevant if you consider job security an issue). It's a shame the decent moves Hendry made didn't get any recognition, but hey, times are bad, so only bad gets reported. Eyre and Howry have been very strong. Trusting and giving the young the players the nod all season without short hooks is another point worthy of praise. As to the "luck" discussion, I think Baker is correct. Luck is a factor in baseball. And the Cubs have been snakebitten in a serious way the past two weeks. When a Cubs player hits a rocket, it's an out. When the opposing player hits a check swing mistake, it's a basehit. But, where Baker is incorrect is that bad luck doesn't excuse poor play. And there has been plenty of that as well. It's well and good to point out that guys aren't finding holes, but there needs to be some actual accountability for the poor defense play, terrible baserunning, lack of throwing fundamentals, inability to sacrifice bunt or fly, etc. I think it is a mistake for anyone to suggest there is no luck involved though.

What makes you right and them wrong? Bonds was well past 400 HR when he supposedly started taking steriods. He has always been a leg-driven power hitter that currently has minimal power from his legs.

Personally I'm going to root for the Cubs to win all 6 games just mentioned. My main concern isn't Baker's coaching status, it's Cubs victories.

The offseason has been discussed ad-nauseum, but continues to receive re-evaluation as the Cubs record changes. Offseason moves are gambles. The only signings worth questioning are Perez, Rusch, and Jones, particularly the 2nd year for Perez, the 2nd year for Rusch, and the 2nd and 3rd year for Jones. The team could have done without all 3, but if those 3 players receive 1 year deals, the offseason isn't that bad and certainly worth firing the GM over. Nobody knows how hard Hendry tried to get a better RF answer than Jones. There wasn't a viable FA option (don't bother me with the Giles angle) and, as has been discussed so many times, the Cubs didn't have solid ground for trades. Trades started with names like Prior and Zambrano and weren't accepted when names like Hill or Guzman were substituted instead. Pierre was a gamble and thus far hasn't been a good one. But one year's declining numbers on a player of his age wasn't "tell-tale" or indicative of a pattern. Just as many analysts predicted a resurrgance from Pierre as predicted a steady decline. But the move to acquire Pierre wasn't a bad one since it came before the Jones deal. The Jones deal made the Pierre deal less valuable. Poor performance on the field right now is more of an indication of the team management than the team talent. The team talent is good enough to compete for the division and the wildcard. The hitting and pitching instructors are not.