dew1679666265

Didn't see this posted anywhere, but Fan Graphs did a story on the need to call up Jake Fox. They don't mention defense in the blog, however.

You are taking pleasure in Wood's struggles...why? His sig makes me sad.

His poor defense will lessen the amount of good his bat can do. It's already questionable whether he could come up here and hit like Hoff, but with his defense he'd have to. He was brought in as depth. We have two of Miles/Freel/Font/Scales starting at 2B and 3B right now, but if any of them need to go out, we need the added depth so that Koyie Hill isn't playing third base. Also, there are going to be times when Theriot isn't playing, further weakening our MIF depth.

Demp looked good all night, I thought. The offense obviously didn't look good, but again, the Cardinal pitchers were mostly right around the plate.

Because the switch hitter can't hit anybody. In a very small sample size so far this year Reed is hitting .557 against righties and Miles is hitting .462. Our bench is bad, so we're going to have bad options no matter what (save for Hoff and, for now, Scales) but I think Reed there was the right decision.

I could see him up as a DH, but there's no way Lou would have the patience (nor, probably, should he) to let Fox play the field.

Jake Fox just isn't a realistic option, I'm afraid. If he can't play defense his bat will have little impact for us.

Probably the worst thing we could do is bench Bradley. We have too much of an investment in him (both monetarily and need in the lineup) to sit him more than we need to. Right now he just needs to stay in the lineup, get ABs and - hopefully - stay healthy. He will hit, even if it takes some time.

I do think there's an element of the players pressing a bit when we got to the 08 playoffs. Given the 100-year thing and the 2007 pitiful performance, I think there likely was something to the idea that the players put too much pressure on themselves and didn't respond well. Was it the reason we lost the series or got swept? No, but I don't think it helped at all. The thing is, I don't think there's anything the players or coaches can do about it. For whatever negative affect that pressure had on the players, I think it'd go away if they just got off to a good start in the playoffs. Either way, drastic changes from what made us successful in the regular season should not be implemented.

Gregg for DeRosa?

And that's the problem. What's an extra $3 million this year (0.5 MM overall) when you're trying to win a World Series. Very inconsistent by the Cubs management, even with the ownership change. "$10 million for Bradley--$30 million overall? Why not? 4 million for Gregg? Sure. $3 million for DeRosa? I don't think so, let's get Aaron Miles instead!" Even if they had "benched" him for Fontenot, he would have been worth it. 2 weeks a year (at least) at 3rd, platoon in RF with Bradley, platoon at 2B with Fontenot, a game or two at shortstop, insurance for Soriano and/or Lee. He would have gotten 300 ABs at least even without Aramis going down with this 2 month injury. Maybe Lou just didn't like him, although I still find that hard to believe. Well there was the whole "he doesn't hit lefthanded" thing. That likely played a big part. As for the money, there have been two theories tossed around. One is that we needed the cash saved from DeRosa to be able to sign Bradley. I don't buy that because it wouldn't make sense to turn around and pay Miles $2.5 this year after dealing DeRo. It would seem more logical to go truly cheap (since we're going bad anyway). The second theory is that we traded DeRo as part of a money saving attempt to net Peavy. That's far more likely, but Hendry should've waited until the Peavy deal was complete before dumping DeRo.

Yeah, it was really a sign of Peyton not being "able to win the big game" when he'd lose a 50-40 shootout to Florida. Or when the Colt defense (back when it wasn't good) gave up 40 points in a playoff game and he didn't have "what it takes."

I don't watch any of them - unless you count Pitchmen occassionally (a show about Billy Mays pitching products). Otherwise, they're all pretty terrible.

I was meaning more of an overall committment. Wasn't DeRosa like $5.5 million for this year while Miles is $5 million over 2 years? That's a pretty minor overall difference, even when looking at just this year's payroll. And, yes, Wells and Miles for the 3 Indians guys would probably be good for the Cubs in the long run. Yeah, when factoring in overpaying Miles for next year as well, the difference is a bit less. Even still, apparently that extra $3 million this year was too much.

I wouldn't make that deal. Fontenot and DeRosa have been pretty much the same player this year. Fontenot's not going to hit .207 all year long, and with his walk and power rates he should improve as the season goes along and some singles start to fall in. If you trade him for DeRosa, you're committed to trying to find a new second baseman after 2009 with limited funds available. Considering that we're not even sure yet if DeRosa would be an upgrade over Fontenot this year, it would be a bad gamble IMO. That's kind of what I think, too. Why couldn't we just hold on to the guy? Imagine having DeRo instead of Miles? Same overall financial committment and probably a Type A for DeRosa. $3 million more for DeRosa, though that's not a huge amount. We don't have a decent backup shortstop now. The only real reason Miles is considered able to play the position is because he's played there before, I guess. He has a -10.9 UZR at SS (111 games) and DeRosa has a -3.6 UZR at SS (139 games). I would do that trade in a heartbeat. And if Hendry could pull it off, he'd look like a genius. Basically Wells and Miles for Stevens, Gaub and Archer.

Apparently this was an aide-type person who posted this twitter message in Kiffin's stead, but I get your general point.

Jeff Stevens, Chris Archer and Jon Gaub should just about do it. Sorry. :oops:

PECOTA had the Yankees with 97 wins, the Red Sox with 91 wins and the Rays with 89 wins. So 8 games behind New York and two behind Boston. If the Brewers are going to win 95+ games, they'll have to win 70 of their final 123 games. They'll also have to have Dave Bush continue to put up a higher ERA+ (118) than he's had since he was 24 (and pitched 16 games). Hoffman will also have to stay healthy all year and Todd Coffey and Mark DiFelice will have to continue their unbelievably good seasons (career high 143 ERA+ for Coffey and perhaps greatest ERA+ ever of 311 for DiFelice). I guess it's all possible, but very, very unlikely. I could see Bush having a Ryan Dempster/Oliver Perez type of walk year and parlaying it into a 3-4 year deal before slipping back into mediocrity. Possible, but not something you want to bank on. The large likelihood remains that the Cubs are the definite favorites to win the division.

He doesn't - he's on the 40-man roster. After 2009, he's also out of options. That being the case, we need to call him up or trade him. If what you're saying is we lose him after this year, we have to at least see if we can get something like Ty Wiggington or Russel Branyan for him. You don't think Hendry might have tried?

Robert Marve has apparently decided to transfer to Purdue, according to an ESPN "source". He'll announce his decision Friday.

While a DeRosa trade would be very depressing to me, I'm really hoping the Crew doesn't sign Durham. He seems like a perfect fit for them with Weeks down.

PECOTA had the Yankees with 97 wins, the Red Sox with 91 wins and the Rays with 89 wins. So 8 games behind New York and two behind Boston. If the Brewers are going to win 95+ games, they'll have to win 70 of their final 123 games. They'll also have to have Dave Bush continue to put up a higher ERA+ (118) than he's had since he was 24 (and pitched 16 games). Hoffman will also have to stay healthy all year and Todd Coffey and Mark DiFelice will have to continue their unbelievably good seasons (career high 143 ERA+ for Coffey and perhaps greatest ERA+ ever of 311 for DiFelice). I guess it's all possible, but very, very unlikely.

There have been a whole lot of bad Cubs teams in those 100 years. That's the biggest reason we've gone a century without a World Series title. We've also made it to the NLCS in 2003 and the World Series in 1945 in that time span. If this team were able to win 90+ games for 5 straight seasons, there's a good chance they'd win the World Series in at least one of those five years. Just out of curiosity, why is it that the Braves won just one WS in 14 straight years of winning their division? Was it the fault of the players, or just that they hit a cold streak (or a superior team) in a short, critical moment?

31 of his 43 pitches have been strikes. Nice job Fontenot!

So close for the Grizzlies . . . No idea who they'll take at number 2. Blake Griffin would have been nice.