CubsInNC

Agree. Shut him down. And Z, shame, great shame on you for trying to pitch through that, this particular year. Doesn't he realized that we're so close to the top in the reverse pennant race? In seriousness though, hasn't he paid attention to the number of pitchers we've lost this year due to injury? Does he really think he's immune?

I would generally agree, however, *if* there was prior knowledge by Dusty, Larry, or any other coach, I *do* think that a prior-knowledge holder should be fired immediately. This season is lost, and the games meaningless (aside from the #1 overall pick), so to risk a long-term injury to the only reliable great pitcher we have is asinine. If there was no prior knowledge (which I don't believe judging by the facial expressions and reactions of Larry and Dusty in the dugout in the first inning), then shame on Z for trying anyway. And either way, I hope it's not serious.

I sent him a rather long response to the pathetic excuse of a column. Hopefully it gets read.

Yeah, I haven't been a Mulder fan since his first few seasons in Oakland. He was looking like the best of the Big 3 for a while (Hudson, Zito included), but easily was the one you could predict wouldn't continue his success. The Cubs need real help. No more of this lightning in the bottle crap, unless there is legitimate high reward chances. Mulder if healthy, IMO, is still a low end #3 starter. I agree that he's a #3, when healthy he's probably a good 3, but on average he's a 3, imo. What's the downside to going after a real big name to be the #2 this year, and a year deal to another stop-gap 3, or penciling in Prior as that 3 with a AAA vet as backup? 2007: 1) Zambrano 2) Schmidt 3) Stop-Gap #3 (Meche type) until/if Mulder returns healthy 4) Marshall/Hill/Guz/etc 5) Prior or Marshall/Hill/Guz/etc 2008: 1) Zambrano 2) Schmidt 3) Mulder 4) Marshall/Hill/Guz 5) Hill/Guz/Marshall/Gallagher/Veal Hey look, in 2008 there's no Prior on this team. Not gonna count on him, but if we played our cards right, we'd have some nice trading blocks if Mulder actually came back healthy.

And can get you some pretty nice contracts if you do it often enough. Don't have to consistently, if you want one from the Cubs. Just had to do it once, and even that was based on opportunities.

If it wasn't for the little detail of Jim Thome not on a list that I paid no attention to, Willingham would actually be a pretty good pick for that spot.

Kevin Kreier was indeed the Cubs' 20th rounder. Based on what I found searching the net, it sounds like he'll be a probable DFE, and is headed to Western Nevada Community College. Here's BA's 20th round list, which shows Kreier as not signed yet. BA Now lists Krier as signed. Unsigned per BA: Keoni Ruth Round 17 2B San Diego Jose Hernandez Round 18 rhp Edgewater HS, Orlando Jovan Rosa Round 22 3b Lake City (Fla.) CC Jamie Bagley Round 25 rhp Hargrave HS, Huffman, Texas Cedric Redmond Round 27 rhp Joliet (Ill.) Township HS Brett Summers Round 28 rhp South Suburban (Ill.) CC Jordan Latham Round 29 rhp JC of Southern Idaho Bryan Collins Round 31 rhp Alvin (Texas) CC Nate Sampson Round 34 ss Ocala Forest HS, Ocala, Fla. Marquez Smith Round 35 3b Clemson David Francis Round 37 rhp St. Joseph SS, Mississauga, Ontario Ben Feltner Round 38 of Temple (Texas) JC Marcus Hatley Round 39 of Mission Hills HS, San Marcos, Calif. Jonathan Negron Round 41 rhp Puerto Rican Baseball Academy, Guaynabo, P.R. Ben Ornelas Round 42 of Cypress (Calif.) JC Anthony Morel Round 43 ss Riverside (Calif.) CC Daniel Berlind Round 44 rhp Calabasas (Calif.) HS Ryan Shook Round 46 lhp Valley Christian Academy, Roseville, Calif. Kenneth Goodline Round 48 rhp North Monterey County HS, Castroville, Ryan Davis Round 50 lhp East Lake HS, Sammamish, Wash.Calif.

:lol: :lol: =D> Good one. Wish someone woulda pushed him to elaborate on that. Hope Jim hears it too.

I definitely want Hill to do well. One way to get the best of both worlds would have been for Hill to have pitched well but the bullpen blow the game. The Cubs just had too big of a lead for that to happen today, though. That darn Riot. :D Would losing 4-0 but throwing a no-hitter and just a walk or 2 be too much to ask? Throw in a few horrible plays by Jones and Pierre making the errors and causing the runs to score. Evidently. Way to go Hill. Show em you belong. We need the trade value. :lol:

Again, I would be willing to bet that the media keeps bringing it up and that's why he repeatedly talks about it. After all, he would've brought it up all the time in San Francisco, last year and earlier this year. And I still say the professional thing to do would be to not talk about it as something more than it is. If it's a story, by all means he should talk about it. But if the media is FISHING for a story, like he says they are, he shouldn't give them that story. However, by giving them the story, he can attempt to gain sympathy, distract people from his horrible abilities as a manager, and have the front page story be about the racism he's the victim of, rather than the fact he overused all his pitchers and still blew a game the day before... True, as an oustanding field manager skilled in the art of public relations, the correct response is either "that is an internal matter" or "no comment." However Baker *is* a pretty nice guy. Horrible manager for a developing team counting on pitchers health for the future. But a nice guy. If someone asks him a question he's the kinda guy who will answer it, in a direct fashion (as it makes sense to him). You could ask him, as a media man, about how Darren's first day of school went, and while a good PR man would say "that has no relation to how this team performs" but Dusty would truly tell them. He's a manager. Not a speech writer, politician, etc. I don't think in his mind that he's using those as distractions. People claim that he's clueless in terms of being a manager, how could he be clever enough to manipulate the entire mass media to distract them (and the management and fanbase) to the mess on the field? He talks about how the media guys used to be "friends" and spent all kinds of time with the ol' skool people. They reported on baseball, but they heard it all. Dusty's very old school, and if the last 4 years have taught us anything, it's that he's incredibly resistant to change.

I'm not there when they're asked. So I assume that you are. Have you ever told something to a friend who might have happened to mention it to someone else, then someone else, and next thing you know someone who's kinda nosey is asking you about it? Dunno if that happened, but it *is* feasible. And Dusty does NOT say that. He says that the media has changed. It's much more sensationalism driven. Which is true, isn't it? We all want to know the latest scoop, and we give our attention to the one who provides it. He doesn't say that they never criticized. He says they had a job to do and "didn't necessarily squash everything or monitor everything. If something bad happened, they did their job and wrote about it. But they would report on the game more, rather than concentrate on reporting about the personal lives and personalities of the players." If anything he's blaming the MEDIA for making it about the personal lives, not the bad play on the field. Did we hear about the alcohol, drug, and gambling problems of many of the players in the 50-70s while they happened? Or were they for the most part after the fact? Did the media follow the players on their own personal time to track down who was sleeping around, who was snortin lines of coke, etc? Or was that considered just that, personal time? I still don't see it as him taking blame, more shifting it to the players (probably those dad-burn rookies). But he's not saying things the way you think.

I agree totally. All he says in this is basically he wants to manage more. He wants to win more. I can't fault him for that much. If I had been successful at my job in the past (in my eyes) and I took another one and wasn't successful, I'd chalk it up to bad luck and try again too. Nothing to see here, move along. In that case, he should not try and make excuses. Just say it was a bad year on everyone's part, and move on. Don't drag up all the stuff he's dragging up trying to get people talkign about anything but the bad team! I'm *not* a Dusty defender. In any sense of the word. I think he should be gone, and have for awhile. But, in this particular instance, and probably many others, do you think he brought it up? Or do you think it's possible that he was giving his post-game/practice/towel drill/thumping interview and someone asked the question, "Dusty, if you're not with the Cubs next year, what would you like to do?" "Dusty, how do you respond to the repeated criticism of you in the press?" "Dusty, have you always felt that way about it?" "How are you holding up in this season? Is it wearing you down? Making you want to quit? Regret being here?" Running to Lee, "Derrek, what do you think of the media as it covers baseball?" Isn't that at all possible? Do you really think that many baseball-affiliated people would just stand/sit there and drone on and on and on, without getting asked a single question? The Chicago media (and national media to an extent) are more and more like sharks in the water around Dusty. They're smell the blood of the imminent change of tenure and want to stir up as much controversy as possible so they get the scoop. I'm sure Bruce could comment further.

I agree totally. All he says in this is basically he wants to manage more. He wants to win more. I can't fault him for that much. If I had been successful at my job in the past (in my eyes) and I took another one and wasn't successful, I'd chalk it up to bad luck and try again too. Nothing to see here, move along.

If Aramis opts out, and leaves, I'd seriously consider a fire-sale. As GM I'd approach Z, Lee, and Barrett and flat out tell them that you plan on rebuilding. You'd like to keep them around to help see it through, because you but you understand if they would prefer you to seek trades to attempt to place them on team(s) where they would have a post-season chance. I'd bring it up to Lee directly, and mention it to Barrett and Z, after A-Ram leaves, in contract negotiations with both to extend them. If they say they want to stay, I'd trade any and everyone over 25 I could get AA prospects for. I'd offer arbitration to all my players who would command multi-year deals. I'd trade Cedeno, instead of Izturis. Because by the time the prospects are up, Izturis will be done and gone, and Cedeno might net me more in return. If they say no, they want to leave, they're my first pieces to ship. I'd only trade them for prospects and expiring contract veterans. The higher the dollar amount we pay the vet, the better the player we get back. I'd hope to get: Z+Barrett to NYY for Cano, Hughes, and Tabata (no way it'd happen) Lee + Prior + Cedeno to Detroit for Maybin, Miller, and Humberto Sanchez (and again, no way) Howry & Eyre should fetch me some decent prospects back (moreso next June than this offseason, I'd think) I'd be willing to trade some of, but not all, our now seasoned up and coming pitching as well, for prospects (Hill, Guz, Marshall, etc).

hahahahahahahahhaha

One the other jv football coaches and the jv baseball coach was Paul Maneri. Paul Maneri is the current head baseball coach at Notre Dame. I knew that Maineri was a close friend of Hendry's (probably part of the reason Johnson and Shark are in our system now) but I didn't know where that came from, thanks for mentioning. Maineri left ND this summer for the job at his alma mater, LSU. Is Shark a nickname for Samardzija? Samardzija's agent, Mark Rodgers, was another of our jv football coaches. "It's a small world after all......"

If it did, then it should be measurable through the production with and without Lee. And just because someone hasn't derived the mathematical formula for it (the psycholofical effects), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Luck can't be measured either, but it's alluded to, in explaining why someone's stats vary significantly from normalized stats, like BABIP. The point is, if the psychological effect of losing Lee was an overall negative, it would show up in the production of those players that were affected. So it would be measurable. The players on this team are relatively close to what should have been expected of them. You can't really point at any one player and say he's doing much worse than he should have, and then blame that on Lee. So if the players aren't doing any worse, you can't justify the claim that the loss of Lee caused them to play worse due to the psychological blow. I'm not saying it does or doesn't exist but because the mathematical formula that quantifies it doesn't exist (yet) it can't be dismissed as a non-factor, an immeasurable one and debateable to it's influence, but not a non-factor. Why isn't BA the best stat? Because there are lots of aspects of the offensive game that it fails to include and calculate the significance of. Was it at one time considered one of the top stats? Probably. There were some who pushed on and developed mathematical models that superceded BA as more telling signs of offensive contribution. VORP isn't the perfect stat, yet. It's one of the best we have at our discretion to show the basic difference between a player and his replacement. Maybe it does. Does randomness and statistical analysis tell you that all 25 members of the Cubs roster should perform at their "statistical norm" all at the same time? I'm not attacking, asking, because I don't know. I don't think so, but I'm open to proof that it's valid to assume that. It tells me that they should all average the statistical norms, but there's always variance. Humans aren't entirely random, and neither is baseball. Outside of random chance there might be other measurable things that do contribute to when a player performs at a higher or lower than normal, or even at normal levels. Could everyone on the team just have not eaten carrots during that span and it affected their eyesight, and it's not mental? Sure. But there are quantifiable reasons to explain why a person performs at the level they do, whether that's with or against the "odds" (I hate that term). We just don't understand the math yet. Ex. Marcus Giles says he hates batting leadoff. And for some reason, when he does, he does not perform where statistics say he should be? Do we toss the stats out? No. But it is valid to assume that there is a measurable quantity there of how much his "hatred" plays into that.

Mabry + Bynum for the 2 open spots on the roster? If MLB makes us get something in return it can be "PTBNL or Cash" and we'll take $2 back.

If it did, then it should be measurable through the production with and without Lee. And just because someone hasn't derived the mathematical formula for it (the psycholofical effects), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Luck can't be measured either, but it's alluded to, in explaining why someone's stats vary significantly from normalized stats, like BABIP.

Even if NONE of them rank ahead of him, Barret does NOT rank ahead of the ANY of the catchers in the 7-8mil range, and nor should he ever be in a discussion that pays him equal to what Pudge gets paid. Never. If that what he wants and gets, good riddance. His offense is his ONLY asset. Once that declines OR his knees/back give out, he's nothing more than a part-time C/PH/DH at best. And since he will be 31 before that season starts, the chances of him living out a long-term deal and being tradeable or useful in year 3 or 4 of a multi-year 10+mil/yr deal are slim to none.

Makes me sick! I found their thoughts on Barrett amusing. They talk about it talking quite a bit of money to retain him. Barrett's basically getting about $4mil/yr for 3 years. He's not a $8+mil/year talent. In terms of top paid catchers there are: Kendal 6/60 thru 07 Bengie Molina 7.5mil in 07 Victor Martinez 7mil in 2010 Kenji Johjima 5.5mil LoDuca 6.25mil thru 07 Brian Schnieder 5mil thru 09 Ramon Hernandez 7-9mil thru 2010 Piazza 8mil Lieberthanl 7.5 ends in 06 Jason Larue 5mil thru 07 Varitek 9mil thru 08 Javy Lopez 8.5mil Pudge 11mil in 07, 13mil in 08 Pierzynski 5.5 thru 08 Posada 12mil in 07 You can (arguably) toss Piazza's deal out of consideration for how Barret should be paid as it was a 1yr deal for an aging vet. You can also arguably toss out any contract negotiated by the Yankees. Of those catchers who are better overall than Barrett? Kendall, LoDuca, Ramon Hernandez, Varitek, and Pudge. Worse? Johjima, Schneider, maybe Larue. Barrett is gonna cost more than 4mil/year, but not elite catcher level. He doesn't have the power bat or the defense to accompany his OBP/BA. His best chance of "big money" would be from Beane. But to make matters worse for him, he's not even the biggest FA catcher on the market in 07. You've got Molina, Kendall, Larue, LoDuca, Posada on the market that year, and Pudge, AJ, and Varitek the next year which could sway some teams to go with a 1yr stopgap and throw money at the next FAs. Barret's probably going to get ~6-7mil/yr on the market due to the defense concerns and the lack of much power in his bat. And that's not that much of raise, in my eyes.

Rotoworld's latest off-season Cubs-related guesses: Henry Blanco Michael Barret Aramis Ramirez Tejada Carlos Lee Soriano Pierre Dave Roberts Jose Guillen They also note that if Torii Hunter and/or Edmonds are shopped or boughtout this winter that the Cubs might head that direction as well.

Not if we had sent Cedeno down there to get work at 2B and called up Fontenot, like we should have... Then Fontenot and The Riot could split time at 2B. Maybe we should mail Mike some blackmail pictures of Jim, so he can get called up. All I can say is that if Jim truly intends on Ronny playing 2B next year (ugh) he better make sure he plays every inning of every game in a winter league at 2B.

I don't either. There's no way we'd get what we're likely to get from declining arbitration through a trade, waiver-wire or not. And if we're stuck with him for 1 more year, that's ok too. Pie shouldn't be rushed.

I hope we told them he was available for 2 pretty good prospects, minimum. Which is what we should get if he walks from arbitration. Guessing at how overvalued he is to our front office though, we probably told them to send us Howard, Rowand, and Michael Bourn (cuz Jim liked his movies and his speed doesn't slump).