dew1679666265

It'd be a temporary fix at best. Given how Kouzmanoff is doing this season and given his track record, you'll be just as frustrated watching him as you are with Miles. And honestly, Scales is still OPSing .861. He likely won't keep it up, but I'd much rather have him in the lineup than Kouzmanoff until he actually does drop off. Actually, the real problem right now is the Fontenot/Miles/Scales trio. Soto was recently hitting pretty well and Bradley is a certainty to significantly improve on his current numbers. The 2B/3B conundrum is easily our biggest problem and we currently have a relative unknown (Font), a complete unknown (Scales) and a proven bad hitter (Miles) filling those spots. We need help at those two spots and if Fontenot doesn't start hitting and Aramis doesn't come back for a long time, that help will need to come from outside the organization. I don't see any evidence that Kouzmanoff is that help, though.

I agree. He's been much better recently, which is part of what makes me think he'll work his way out of this funk.

While Kouz wouldnt be my ideal target, Id take him. What I dont like about this comment is the Fontenot adequately filling 3rd part. Be it true or not, were still relying on the 3 headed monster at second. Im willing to give Font time to pull it together, but Id just assume not have to rely on at least 1 of Scales, Freel, and Miles in our everyday lineup. I know that every team has a guy like that in their lineup, but we have to rely on a lineup with a solid, no easy out 1-8 since we dont have that one superstar like a Pujols or a Braun. What is it exactly that you like about Kouzmanoff? He's currently got a .651 OPS and is getting on base at a .285 clip. Fontenot's .667 OPS is actually better this year than Kouzmanoff's. Kouz is doing better than Fontenot this month, but Fontenot did better in April. Kouzmanoff might be an upgrade over Aaron Miles and perhaps Bobby Scales, but not by much in either case. I don't think it's worth giving up trading chips for a very minimal upgrade over Miles and Scales. And given the Padres' reluctance to come out and put Kouz on the block, I doubt he'd come really cheap.

I think that's the case for most of our offense. They all have had similar seasons as Fontenot to this point (patience is there but all of them have been incredibly unlucky). Once some balls start falling in, the numbers will improve, runs will start being scored again and we'll start winning some games. Baseball is such a fickle game, though, that there's really not much a team/manager/GM can do in stretches like this and desperation efforts often only worsen the impact. I don't know... I'm really worried about Soto. He came out of nowhere so he could turn back into crap just as quickly. Soto may not be the player he was last year, but I think we've got enough evidence that he can be a successful major league catcher. It is certainly possible that it was a mirage, though.

The Cubs haven't won any championships in 100 years because they haven't made the playoffs very often in 100 years. If they had made the playoffs as often as the Braves and Yankees have in the past century, the Cubs as well would have had a title or more to their credit. Before you can win championships you have to be able to win consistently in the regular season. The Cubs haven't done that very much in the past 100 years, but they have the past two seasons. If they continue on this path, it's a pretty good bet they'll a ring or rings. Two years ago was a decent season with a disappointing finish. Last year was a good season with another disappointing finish. Both were steps in the right direction, however, given that we are now establishing regular season success. That should lead to more playoff success and that should lead to World Series championships. I think every person who has posted in this thread wants to see more than a 97-win season and an exit from the playoffs. Do you seriously think there are Cub fans here that don't crave a World Series championship? The only difference between us is how much we're willing to react over a couple of terrible 3-game stretches after a couple of pretty good years. I hold the team to a very high standard and I think the players/coaches/front office people do as well. No one is content or happy with anything short of a World Series title. But some of us are not willing to demolish a very talented team simply because they had six bad games.

I think that's the case for most of our offense. They all have had similar seasons as Fontenot to this point (patience is there but all of them have been incredibly unlucky). Once some balls start falling in, the numbers will improve, runs will start being scored again and we'll start winning some games. Baseball is such a fickle game, though, that there's really not much a team/manager/GM can do in stretches like this and desperation efforts often only worsen the impact.

I'd take any of those Braves teams 10 times out of 10 over the most recent 80-something win Cardinals WS team if I was trying to win a title. I agree. The best you can do is build for the regular season and then hope the players perform on the bigger stage. There's just no magic formula to have guys get hot in the postseason. If they're cold, they'll be beaten by other very good to great teams. If they're hot, they'll go a long way. In short series, there's really not much that can be done.

Yay. Bradley will hit better, Soto will hit better, Lee will hit better, Fontenot will hit better and a couple spots in the pen will sure up. Aramis will get healthy (to some extent). The Cardinals and Brewers are about as good now as they will be this year. Any change from them will be downhill.

I'd take any of those Braves teams 10 times out of 10 over the most recent 80-something win Cardinals WS team if I was trying to win a title.

They didn't fail, they didn't even show up. It's not like they won a couple games and lost on a bad call, or even put up a fight for one game. They played the exact same two NLDS's back to back. They imploded defensively, the starting pitching was mediocre and the hitting non-existent. This is all true. They played awful for three games. But they also played terrific for 97 games. Which is more indicative of success? Sorry, I don't remember the teams that lose NL/ALDS's. You not remembering them doesn't mean they weren't great teams. They were. You aren't implying that the Cubs are 0-6 in the NLDS because they didn't catch any breaks, are you? Because that had nothing to do with it. I'm stating they the Cubs went 0-6 in the playoffs because they hit a cold streak at the wrong time. It happens. The Braves won 14 straight division titles and 1 World Series title in that stretch. They did that with Hall of Famers in the rotation (Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine), a Hall of Famer on offense (Chipper Jones) and other great players on offense (Rafael Furcal, Andruw Jones, Andres Galarraga, David Justice, Ron Gant, Brian McCann, Ryan Klesko, etc.). Those weren't great teams?

His BABIP (Batting Average on Balls hit In Play) is horrifically awful (as are most of the BABIPs for our offensive regulars), so he's hitting into some terrible luck (balls are going right at players far more often than they should). He does need to start hitting the ball a little harder, but even the hard hit balls are right at people right now. I'd think he's likely to break out of this funk.

Great teams fail in the postseason all the time. It happens. Saying last year's Cubs team wasn't good is like saying the Yankees teams of 2005-2007 (won 286 games over 3 years, but lost in the ALDS each year) were not good or that the Oakland As of the early 2000s (392 wins over 4 seasons but four ALDS losses) were not good teams. Interestingly, both those GMs (Cashman of the Yankees and Beane of the As) are still there. Those were great teams that didn't catch the breaks in short series. It happens. In all sports (last year's Tennessee Titans, best record in the AFC but lost in the first game of the playoffs). It doesn't have to be anybody's fault.

Stevens and Reinhard are complete question marks. Any contending team is going to demand much more of a certainty if they want bullpen help. Non-contenders are not going to give up a valuable piece if Stevens or Reinhard are the centerpiece - unless we just overwhelm them with quantity. Heilman will not interest non-contenders, I wouldn't think, given that he's 30 and only signed to a one-year deal. He may interest some contenders, but I question whether they'd be willing to give up a bat much, if any, better than what we already have for him. Jake Fox, I think, will entice some AL teams, but a 27-year-old AAA DH who probably has the upside of Russell Branyan isn't going to bring much on his own. I think we could acquire someone like Branyan for a package something like Fox/Wells/lower level prospect, maybe, but again the Ms think they're in contention right now so he's likely not available. The Os likely wouldn't have interest in any of those guys (save for, perhaps, Fox) because they've got quite a few bad arms - they just need legit MLers.

Here's a question for you: What are your feelings on John Schuerholz, former GM of the Braves? Would you take him over Hendry, if given the chance?

Problem is, the likelihood is that we'd be trading off a lot of defense for an unknown amount of offense. Getting Hoff in the lineup full time would be nice, but the only sure thing about Fox is that he can't play defense. He might be able to hit like crazy, he may struggle - nobody knows for sure. But he'll have to put up near his minor league numbers right now to make up for that defensive alignment.

Here's an interesting interview between the National Football Post's Matt Bowen and Jerry Angelo. Here's a couple snippets: On the receivers question On Rod Marinelli's effectiveness

This is about how I feel. Peyton, Favre, Marino, Montana and Elway are definitely better QBs (in the entirety of their careers) than Brady, but I'm not sure are many/any others better than him. I'm no Patriot fan, but Brady's an incredible talent who, like all great QBs, is helped by his system.

The Cowboys appear to be interested in trading Greg Ellis.

Why wouldn't the Nats do this? They're going nowhere and have had Johnson on the trading block forever. Trade him before he gets injured again. I know he is hurt a lot but he is still a pretty good player. I just don't get trading an everyday guy for a middle reliever. He was a full-time starter for two seasons in the minor leagues (2002 and 2004), so he may be able to revert back to that. I'm not that familiar with Delcarmen, but it's possible they only moved him from the rotation when it became evident they had ridiculous depth in starting pitchers and he may never see the majors as a starter. I could be wrong, though.

That would be a possibility, but it won't mean a whole lot. If another team that Peavy wants to go to swoops in and offers a better deal, there's no reason for Towers to turn that deal down. A handshake/gentleman's agreement between Hendry and Towers before the Cubs can actually do the deal would only hurt Towers in his attempt to get the premium price for Peavy.

Yeah, if we're talking about building a franchise I'd take Cutler over Brady, McNabb and Palmer. If we're talking about winning the Super Bowl this year, I'd take Brady and maybe McNabb over Cutler and think about Palmer - depending on his health.

Are we saying Cutler with the Bears and those guys with their teams, or those guys with the Bears? That's a good question. It's been pretty hypothetical to this point. It's hard to gauge what Cutler will do with the Bears because the receivers are such question marks. I was focusing on his numbers with the Broncos and the other guys with their current teams, since it's so hard to predict what those Chicago receivers will do.

If Wells continues to pitch well in the majors, someone might consider him as part of a deal. Maybe. I can agree Atkins/Hart likely won't garner much of any interest at all.

Why not? I'm talking about a healthy Brady/Palmer, by the way. You can't just say they are healthy and have it be so. Palmer is 30 now and each of his last two seasons were less impressive than his two biggest seasons. He's had a real solid batch of talent to work with as well. I would say it remains to be seen where his career is going. As for Brady, he's 32 and coming off a leg injury similar to the one that screwed up Palmer. He had the one monster year, but his career has not been nearly as good as that season, or his legend. He's great. And he'll probably still be a pretty good QB for a couple years. But is he going to be at his peak when he returns, and how long will he last? I'd say there is definitely a debate. I realize you can't just wish injuries away, but by all reports Palmer is healthy and the Patriots must feel pretty confident in Brady's health since they traded away Cassel and haven't brought in veteran help of any sort. As for Palmer, last year he only played in 4 games. That's the only season since his first year that he's missed any time. His numbers in 2007 were better than Cutler's (slightly) and he had the same awful defense/no real running game issues that Jay had. I don't see him returning to his 05 numbers, but 06 isn't out of the question if he's healthy. Those numbers would be better than Cutler this year, though his age would make me think twice about taking him over Cutler in a long-term situation. Brady had amazing numbers in 07, great numbers in 04 and 05 and Jay Cutler-ish numbers in 01, 02, 03 and 06. If he's healthy (which indications are he mostly is) then to expect him to meet or surpass a good Cutler season is not much of a stretch at all. Again, his age does make me think twice, though. I was thinking more short term with both of them in my original post.

When someones desperate for starting pitching, they will. It makes so much sense it makes my head hurt that nothings happeneing. The Cubs and Orioles love making pointless trades with eachother. So why not make on that wil ACTUALLY help both teams. Id trade Heilman+Fox for Huff. Wells+Fox for Mora. Kevin Hart, JR Mathes, or Mitch Atkins+another prospect for Wiggignton. Hell, Heilman+Atkinsm Hart or Mathes if they want for any of the 3. 2 teams with a good relationship that could and should help eachother fill their needs by trading un needed players. why isnt this happening? Heilman is 30, only signed through this year and not an outstanding pitcher. A rebuilding team has little to no use for him. They might be interested in the Harts, Atkins and Wells of the world, but I can't imagine much interest in Heilman.