CubsInNC

The 20 homers is the one I would most question. I think he has the ability to be a batting-title type of hitter, but I think he looks more like a 10-15 homer type of guy with more doubles. I wouldn't be opposed to a few Olerud like years. I see him in a similar mold. Around a .300 average with probably fewer HRs but a few more doubles and triples than Olerud. I could live with that out of LF, especially if we were able to get higher than expected SLG out of CF and 2B. I was just thinking Olerud too. Or Paul O'Neill, that type of guy. I figured Olerud was a better comparison than Tony Gwynn minus 60 points...

The 20 homers is the one I would most question. I think he has the ability to be a batting-title type of hitter, but I think he looks more like a 10-15 homer type of guy with more doubles. I wouldn't be opposed to a few Olerud like years. I see him in a similar mold. Around a .300 average with probably fewer HRs but a few more doubles and triples than Olerud. I could live with that out of LF, especially if we were able to get higher than expected SLG out of CF and 2B.

I think he already does.

Girardi was to be fired Sounds like he doesn't like to listen to management, but wants to build a Yankees team part 2.

I wasn't trying to indicate that the use or abuse was justified, but more an explanation for the conditioning and bounce-back of arms then. Today we have better ideas on strength and conditioning exercises, nutrition and supplements that it seems really difficult to assume that people were more conditioned in the early to mid 1900s than today. I tend to agree that pitchers likely threw fewer pitches per inning and thus outing, but that is speculation on my part. I look at the WHIP of some of the pitchers back then, as well as the batters-per inning then versus today, and it's really about the same as today. Neither are perfect indicators of pitches per outing/inning, but are contributory factors. As for speed of pitches, I don't know that there is any difference either. While back in the early days there weren't radar guns to measure pitch speed, there are the old-time stories of pitchers that could really light up the ball.

If he doesn't have the velocity back, but has adjusted and learned accordingly how to pitch without the stuff he used to have, he might be of value to someone for the remainder of the season. But against low level hitting, that's a hard assumption to make. We'll see after a couple outings at AAA. But if so, to the Angels/Red Sox for PTBNL, based on his contribution to the team. Likely not to get us much, but never know.

So would it be fair to say that conditioning is part of the equation? To someone like Livan or Z in todays day and age, getting to 130pitches inclues fewer pitches while fatigued than say, Sean Marshall getting there? So to a small extent, due to constant (ab)use back in the day, the pitchers arms might have been more inline with frequent re-use and high pitch numbers?

'07 Pedro - $14mil Delgado - $14.5mil Wagner - 10.5 Glavine - scaled anywhere from $5.5mil to $14mil LoDuca - 6.25 Zambrano (arb) - over $3 Oliver Perez (arb) - over $2 Dave Williams (arb) - over 1.5 Julio Franco - 1.1mil Ramon Casto (arb) - over $1 Alay Soler - 900k Jose Reyes - 2.5 Duaner Sanchez (renew) Wright - $1mil Heilman - renew V. Diaz - renew Philip Humber - ML Contract about 800k Lastings Milledge - renew Mike Pelfry - 1.33 (more if on 25man) '08 Pedro - $11mil Delgado - $16mil Wagner - 10.5 Reyes - 4 Duaner Sanchez (arb) Ramon Castro (arb) Dave Williams (arb) Ol. Perez (arb) V. Zambrano (arb) Wright - $5 Heilman (renew) V. Diaz - renew Philip Humber - ML Contract about 800k Lastings Milledge - renew Mike Pelfry - 1.33 (more if on 25man) '09 Delgado - $16mil or $4mil buyout Wagner - $10.5 Reyes - 5.75 Duaner Sanchez (arb) Dave Williams (arb) Ol. Perez (arb) Wright - 7.5 Heilman (arb) V. Diaz - arb Philip Humber - ML Contract about 800k Lastings Milledge - renew Mike Pelfry - 1.33 (more if on 25man) '10 Wagner -$8 or $1 buyout Reyes - 9 Duaner Sanchez (arb) Wright - 10 Heilman (arb) V. Diaz - arb Lastings Milledge - arb '11 Reyes - 11 or 500k buyout Wright - 14 Heilman (arb) V. Diaz - arb Lastings Milledge - arb '12 Wright - 15 Lastings Milledge - arb '13 Wright - 16 or $1mil buyout That doesn't include people likely not in the long-term plans.

Since Boras is his agent, it's likely to take a LOT of money to make that "pain" go away. Seeing as how he says he wants to stay in ATL, could this be the startings of demanding an extension versus demanding a trade/holding out?

Of course defense important, but it must always remain in it's proper balance with good pitching and (over hitting) OBP. Defense is 3rd in it's importance (relative to the 3) but still important overall. If you have 9 butchers in the field, but good pitchers and the ability to get on base well, you will have a wide range in the scoring of games, but a monster offense that will win some games 12-2 and lose some at 14-13. If you have the 9 stellar defenders and good pitchers, but no OBP, you're looking at losing 3-1, 2-0 on a fairly regular basis. If you have the defense and OBP, but no pitching, with the Cubs frequency of flyball pitchers you're going to lose, more often than not, really big. If you had sinkerballers, you'd probably win more than lose, but statistically close to a wash. On the Cubs, we have "stellar" defense, below average pitching (flyball pitchers at that), and a much-much-much below average ability to get on base. So, while our top notch defense might save us on grounders, we'd need superior leapers (think 1000"+ vertical) to save us significantly in the RSA department. It's not measurable, and importance might be minimal, but psychologically, especially in tough situations, it can make a pitcher more confident in the approach to the batter to know that if the ball is hit on the ground, the defense can and will field it, and get the out. It's not something to build a team around, but the idea is valid. Improving defense was not what this team needs, unless the byproduct of our improvement means that Cedeno or Izturis adds a piece to a trade puzzle in the offseason that nets us the impact offensive player or #1/2 starter that we have to have.

Rotoworld discusses the idea that Texas and Houston have been discussing a Blalock for Lidge deal. That would net the Astros 3 players at 3B, Huff, Blalock, and Ensberg. Would anyone be interested in the Cubs acquiring Ensberg, if we were able to deal Aramis for other help? Right now Ensberg's value is pretty low in Houston's eyes. Would we be able to get ensberg for say, a prospect that we regard somewhat highly like Hill or Ryu or maybe, Walker and a prospect? Would Aramis net us the outfield bat we want, or the SS/2B rookies/prospects to complete our infield, and free up money for the OF?

Colon left today's game after 1 inning with an injury so Maddux might help as well. Angels get: Maddux Lowell+$ Walker Pedroia Boston Gets: Aramis Cedeno Cubs get: Wood Kendrik Jacoby Ellsbury McPherson (PTBNL) Quite a stretch... I know.

This is just a hnch. but I think that if the Cubs trade Maddux they would make sure he would be sent to the west coast or near his Vegas home. Earlier on Milwaukee was a possibility due to his brother, but now it seems Milwaukee would be making a mistake to make a playoff push. I agree that if Maddux goes, he's going to the west coast; but was just proposing something to get some discussion going. Boston needs starters, Anaheim needs a 3B. We'd get Lowell for '07, at a very reduced rate, and be able to pursue an OF bat with Cedeno+Murton as a starting package, and/or via FA. Prior could be a substitute to this scenario, but I'd hope for a slightly larger return for Prior+Aram, such as Lowell for $1mil (total=$9mil), and only Wood+Kendrick, no substitutions.

Would there be some sort of 3-way deal workable between us, Anaheim, and the Red Sox? Red Sox get: Greg Maddux Angels get: Aramis Ramirez Prospects from Boston to balance Cubs get: Lowell + cash Kendrick Wood Not that I imagine anything that creative from the team, especially this far out of it. But would something along those lines truly be workable?

1) Jimmy Foxx 2) Lou Gehrig 3) Harmon Killebrew 4) Orlando Cepeda 5) Eddie Murray 6) Dick Allen 7) Hank Greenberg 8) Frank Thomas 9) Jeff Bagwell 10) Rafael Palmeiro Notes: I found #1&2 to be tough to decide between, and could easily be convinced to flip them the other way. Same with 9 and 10. Edit: Removed Musial, per Truff's wishes, and adjusted accordingly.

Fixed, Family friendly here ya know.

1 of 3 baseball kids. Jeremy is a younger brother and twin to Josh. Jonathan - Boston MLB (2003 draft) Jeremy - Cubs minor leagues (2006 draft) Josh - Boston minors (2006 draft)

No go on Pena according to ESPN Deportes. Signed with the NY Mets for $750k in bonus cash. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2514604

If that's true, the man should be running the whole friggin' league. that was brian mcrae, i think. Rodney McCray rodney dangerfield. Considering most of the time that Razor played for the Indianapolis Indians, they had solid brick walls, I don't think so, but it would be a good story. He used to drive snowplows in Indianapolis during the off-season.

I was there too while he played for the Indians and he was about as popular as a minor leaguer could be, I think. Not sure about his stats, but it always seemed like he was a career AAAA player as he did well at Indy but very rarely got to get up to the majors. The city loved him back in those days. Absolutely, those were my immediate thoughts on the subject. I have a hard time taking some of the minor league manager stats seriously though. Such as a W-L record. It's a lot easier to win (I would assume) when you have a talented farm system, and not so easy when you don't. Razor was one of my favorite Indianapolis Indians, probably only though because of name and duration of stay. He was there for 9 years. Moreso than Randy Johnson, DeShields, etc. He seems to be rockin' the ML levels though.

And his mom... oh that poor woman. she was recovering in the hospital for 13 days after he was born.

Those standings are what I expected to see. But the eternal Cubs optimist in me was hoping that there'd be some magical way that the number was about average or above average, and we really weren't that bad.

Ok, I had to read that a few times for it to make sense... it makes some sense that the individual player's average of driving in runners can go up, especially if you're getting fewer team-wide runners on base. It would be interesting to see where we rank in the league at these 2 metrics, as well as our metrics compared to some of the worst Cubs teams in history.

Fred, Not doubting your stats, but aren't those some sort of an anomaly? How can you be driving in more of the runners on base, but scoring fewer runs per baserunner? I must be missing something. It's late, and my brain is fried.