UK1679666180

UK wins against Auburn as Florida loses to the Gamecocks, it's going to be a sad day when both Meeks and Patterson enter the draft next year.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jan/21/hall-of-famer-sandberg-will-keep-smokies-in-step/ Sandberg on managing Tennessee.

Wow! But, isn't Marcum currently on the shelf with some sort of arm ailment? Is it my imagination, or do guys who rely heavily on sliders tend to be more injury prone than others? In other words, what type of setbacks will the Cubs need to worry about with Jackson's future? The slider is a stressful pitch on the arm moreso than a curve or obviously a FB. Everything I've read on Jackson is that he has very fluid mechanics and once he strengthens his lower body, it should help reduce the stress on his arm.

Jackson appears to have better control than Clement though. Different types of pitchers. Clement threw from a 3/4 arm angle with plus movement on both his FB and slider, the thing that separates him from most pitchers was his long, lanky, frame was how difficult it was for the RH'ed batter to pickup the ball coming out of his hand. Clement is more like Juan Cruz, except that Juan Cruz had a plus changeup and the slider wasn't as sharp as Clement's, but both had more movement than they knew what to do with, 3/4 arm angle, and suspect control. I would say that if Jackson follows the course, he is prob. going to end up like Shaun Marcum with a better FB.

BB'ing the bases full to get to the best HR hitter in baseball history would definitely tick some fans off as well.

I'm one of few people with 20/20 vision that wears glasses, my last eye test was in April when I got my new pair of glasses and basically said that I have 20/20 vision. I look better in glasses so I wear them.

Everything that I've read said that is a 4 seamer with some natural movement (I'm not sure if it's cut, sink, or rise). Draft reports had it listed as a pitch that would sit at 90 and top at 93 that could bump up to sitting at 92 and top at 95 when he concentrates on pitching full-time as well strengthening his lower half. they also mentioned a solid slider and curve with a developing change to go along good command and a free and easy arm action.

Why would they want to reinforce bad behavior? He's already demonstrated that he can put the bat on the ball. It seems to me that his development is at least partly contingent on his ability to swing at pitches he can drive. *Most* great hitters aren't hackers. Barry Bonds was extremely aggressive, there's a difference between being aggressive and being a hacker. An aggressive hitter to me is someone that swings at strikes and regardless of count will always swing hard even with two strikes and doesn't watch too many called 3rd strikes. I'm all for being aggressive as you have defined it, but I don't think that is the way vidographer is using it. Barry took his walks. Why the hell would the Cubs want to teach him to not have a good strike zone judgment? They want him to swing at pitches he can hit, swing hard yet mechanically fluid, I don't know how videographer defines it, but I'm sure the cubs approach is similar to the approach I mentioned as far as aggressiveness. As he matures, I'm sure they'll work more on the adjustment phase of hitting as well as the mental toughness aspect.

Why would they want to reinforce bad behavior? He's already demonstrated that he can put the bat on the ball. It seems to me that his development is at least partly contingent on his ability to swing at pitches he can drive. *Most* great hitters aren't hackers. Barry Bonds was extremely aggressive, there's a difference between being aggressive and being a hacker. An aggressive hitter to me is someone that swings at strikes and regardless of count will always swing hard even with two strikes and doesn't watch too many called 3rd strikes.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/college/top-25/2009/267454.html BA's Top 25 rankings are out.

I don't how Florida could be underrated, yet UK doesn't deserve to be in the top 25. Who has UF defeated worth a lick?

cool tell me more. who's going to win the world series? Tampa Bay. This is your completely unbiased opinion, eh? :wink: Would you rather have me say STL?

cool tell me more. who's going to win the world series? Tampa Bay. They'll sweep the Cubs? Or will the Cubs get swept in the first round again? Who said the Cubs will make the playoffs? :)

cool tell me more. who's going to win the world series? Tampa Bay.

Neither Fontenot or DeRosa will duplicate last year's numbers.

Is he a Type A or B? It does bring up an interesting question. Is Cruz/Ceda better than Gregg/draft pick? A. I would rather Cruz over Gregg, but the 1st rounder is likely worth more than Ceda. I'd rather have Gregg and the 1st rounder.

FA compensation appears to be a factor with Cruz right now.

this part certainly seemed otherwise, and is why i thought you were comparing them......... 1)The Cubs aren't as good as the Yankees right now (The Cubs would be the 4th best team in the AL East). 2)If the Cubs regress, their resources can't make up that difference like the Yankees can. we watched the Cubs regress in in '05 and '06 and couldn't get to .500. the Yankees struggle and they end at 85 wins. Yes, that shows that any future regression by the Cubs would likely be much more dramatic than ending up as an 89 win team like NY did. When the Cubs regress, they will likely end up like they did in '05 and '06 rather than the Yankees did last year b/c they don't have resources to quickly rebuild. Unlike the Yankees, the Cubs are fortunate enough to play in a terrible division though.

The goal of a GM is to build a team most capable of winning a WS with the resources that he has & not get to the post-season. This is why we are seeing the moves this off-season with more LH'ed bats and hopefully someone like Peavy (I still think is overrating this bullpen which is likely going to below avg. and needing of a July trade). What I said was that when raiding the farm, the Cubs have to be very careful that do not put themselves in a position where they have to rely strictly on FAs or trying to trade for legit starters with a horrible farm system. While the Cubs can't be TB b/c they don't have nearly the drafting/development success, they have to find that medium with international players and an occasional draft pick. Also, I have stated this numerous times that appears to continued to be overlooked.... I'm not comparing the Cubs to the Yankees, they're completely entities. I'm comparing the Yankees of not to the Yankees of the last 90s, when they were a more complete team. Unless you think the current Yankees squad is as good as the one of 10 years ago, which would be incorrect.

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed. I'm not seeing a huge difference - in results at least. They were only really good from '96-'99 in the '90s and in those years they had one 100 win season and three 90-win seasons. From 2002 to 2004 they surged with three straight 100-win years and since have won 90 games three of the past four years. They've had two 80-win seasons since 1996. I'll agree, though, that last year's 89-win campaign was pretty poor for the Yanks - both in record and talent level. NOTE: I'm not arguing that we can abandon the farm and have anywhere near this success. We don't - and likely won't for a long time - have a $250 million payroll. That pitching regressed from where it was from say 97-01, the Yankees tried to outclub teams and that just don't work in the post-season, even in that era. Now that runs are becoming more of a premium, it'll prob. take on a greater importance.

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed. so what? the fact is, they still make the playoffs every single year (aside from once in the last 14 years). it's a pretty poor analogy. Playoffs don't mean everything as we've watched the Cubs get their asses handed to them two years in a row. I can't believe that you don't see the parallel there or you're trying to put the teams on equal levels. The Yankees have regressed b/c of a change in organizational philosophy, who cares they weren't as good as they once were despite spending much more. Or that if the Cubs regress they would be able to maintain a similar level of regression as the Yankees. 1)The Cubs aren't as good as the Yankees right now (The Cubs would be the 4th best team in the AL East). 2)If the Cubs regress, their resources can't make up that difference like the Yankees can. we watched the Cubs regress in in '05 and '06 and couldn't get to .500. the Yankees struggle and they end at 85 wins.

The Yankees have regressed since the late 90s, they're definitely not as good as they were and part of the problem is how they have changed.

It's not about player X, Y, or Z, it's about organizational philosophy. The Yankees in the early 90s invested in their farm as well as an increase in international scouting. Wang, Soriano, Jiminez, Rivera (Juan and Mariano), Cano etc. They had that rebuilding phase and built from within, they allocated more towards international scouting than anyone while having a competitive payroll. That shifted earlier this decade when they allocated much more on their 25 man roster and neglected much of their international program as well still losing 1st rd. picks towards Type A FA. If they have no one to come up the pipeline, they have to overspend on FA, espec. given their quality of living and expectations from ownership and their fans as well as an open pocketbook. It appeared the Cubs did a similar thing as far as abandoning international scouting as well as some weak drafts and they're in a position to often spend via FA/trade for the majority of moves for starters rather than from within (Soto being the exception). It has cost the Cubs as far as having to overspend on players like Soriano, Marquis, Fukudome, etc. and put them in a financial crunch. Now (thankfully), they appear to be doing better with international scouting and hopefully they will have similar success with the amatuer draft and player development as a whole.

The Cubs definitely need pitching prospects, just that what they rec'd from Clev. wouldn't classify as anything elite or worth holding onto. That type of thinking is what led the Yankees to where they've been for the last 5 years and not something the Cubs have the capacity to do. While I would have no problem in this case of Vitters being involved for Peavy, they should factor the state of the pipeline and what blue-chip guys are being included even if that player will help the Cubs. They trade Vitters and the cubs have maybe the worst farm in the game, espec. if Samardzija does spend the year in the Cubs' pen.

Man that outfield really lacks power, though. They may end up with less than 30 HR's total between the 3. How many dingers did the Rays' OF hit last year? They were considered a fairly successful OF right? The Rays OF was below avg. last year more b/c of health rather than talent, Crawford will never be a power hitter but with his injuries as well as Upton's wrist injury which seemed to heal come post-season. Gross, Hinske, etc. in RF was below avg. as well.