Soul

It's what I expect people to SAY in the heat of the moment during a game, but in a format like this, you have to actually type it out and then hit submit, which should allow even just a little restraint. Soul thinks you're an idiot. How convenient that you forgot to mention it was you who used that word first. What did you expect, an award for it?

as well they should. he's a good fastball hitter and a good inner-half hitter with strong pull tendencies. teams would be foolish not to throw him more breaking balls and more outside-corner pitches. the home run tonight - on a 3-2 slider that was going to paint the low and outside corner - was a nice sign. it wasn't a great slider and it hung a bit, but it wasn't a bad pitch given that it was going to be a outer-half stike and was thrown on a fastball count. geo is still swinging at fewer than 20% of pitches outside the strike zone, and his walk rate has stayed solid, so it's not like he's going up to the plate and just flailing at everything. he has the tools to adjust to big league pitching; maybe he's not a .900 or 1.000 OPS guy, but even an .800 OPS catcher with good defense is still very valuable for a cheap price. It was in the general area he's been missing. I agree, it was certainly very nice to see.

Imagine if we were in last place instead of having the best record in baseball. Some people will bitch about the stupidest stuff no matter what. My favorite is the freaking out about Kerry Wood coming in to save a 1 run lead. You'd think he was awful. No...if we were in last place, the fans would be much more apathetic. The difference is, our expectations have been raised, and we hold the Cubs to a higher level than we did in 2005, 2006 or even 2007 at this point in the year. We want to see Geo succeed so badly, because we know his succcess is a central piece to us winning the World Series. Well then, it'd be nice of some people would show even an iota of baseball acuity and post intelligently - identifying that Soto is a ROOKIE. And most ALL rookies have to adjust their game as they develop and as the league gets to know them. Still doesn't explain the people who STILL don't want to see Woody in a one run game despite peripherals that match the best relievers in baseball. That's just idiocy, in my opinion. The real idiocy is to come on a game thread and expect calm, cool rationale. I mean really, give me a break.

Imagine if we were in last place instead of having the best record in baseball. Some people will bitch about the stupidest stuff no matter what. My favorite is the freaking out about Kerry Wood coming in to save a 1 run lead. You'd think he was awful. Yeah, a 3 run lead turns into a 1 run lead. What fan would care about that? Had nothing to do with Wood's level of talent.

fans are fans

Thanks Bob, now Woody has to be perfect.

LOL you have got to be freaking kidding me.

That should help.

Doc Rivers? Give the Bulls Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Ray and you can bring in one of the janitors to coach. Well you just proved my own point for me. The NBA is more about the players than it is the coach. You have to have talent. By the way, Doc Rivers won Coach of the Year without Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Ray, with no prior experience. He also never got out of the first round until he was handed a ready-made championship roster. I think if you're going to make this argument you should find a better example. I definitely agree the NBA is more about the players than the coach. But we're in a much different situation than the Celtics. And again -- I'm hoping Del Negro succeeds as much as the next guy. The question is whether sitting here, not knowing how anything will turn out, was there really no better option out there than Vinny?

Doc Rivers? Give the Bulls Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Ray and you can bring in one of the janitors to coach.

Plus a new LT and a new left guard and someone who was on the line but hasn't played RT in a few years. Wow. Sounds like a pretty rough year coming up. Oh well, maybe they'll suprise everyone who knows. Just for the record: next time Jerry, when a good portion of the city is screaming at you not to draft a guy because he's trouble, how about listening for a change? Plenty of us smelled trouble with Benson on draft day back then, why couldn't our erstwhile general manager? When fans & media know about a guy's issues and call it out before the draft even happens, you'd think the guy who is making the decisions and has an army of professionals to advise him would be able to see it too. In short, this wasn't hard to forsee, many did when the pick was made.

Hopefully that will be in the last week of September when they're resting their starters. There you go. I like the way you think.

Wow, that really *was* quick. Now maybe Dallas will sign him just like Tank and Pacman.

It's always good to learn of someone new who has accepted the challenge, hardships, and torture necessary to be a fan of the Cubs. Welcome to hell! :mrgreen:

that snow ball has melted. It's funny to read, because I actually agree with some of the reasoning on that thread why DeRosa wasn't the best signing. He really bucked a lot of trends by being good for 2 years (assuming he continues this year) when it did sort of look like he had just had a career year. It's fun to be wrong when it means the Cubs are a better team for it.

I agree experience is overrated, but I also think there's a difference between overrating experience, and hiring say a Business major to engineer the next fighter jet.

I can't wait for this thread if the Cubs do lose 3 in a row.

The better question is how can you do this, then be handed another job in the same division with 3 guys who he could do the same thing to. Bailey, Cueto, and to an extent Volquez will all fall prey to Dusty. Fixed. Nobody's going to change Dusty. Those young arms are dead meat.

No, it doesn't. Also, I didn't realize that we had to get lucky for Paxson's evaluation of the guy to be right. There's no way Paxson's evaluation can be based on anything but "gut" because nobody's ever seen the guy coach, that's why. You mean job interviews are worthless and mean nothing? This hiring was just based on gut? I'm not even trying to defend the hiring. I know nothing about the guy. When all of you know nothing about the candidate, and Paxson obviously knows enough that he took a risk on the guy, it's pretty ridiculous to think that you can deem this a bad hire on the day it's made. I honestly don't know if it's good or not. That said (and this isn't meant as being a defense of the Del Negro hiring), I was pretty sure Collins would be a bad hire and a terrible fit (given the system he ran and his seemingly Skiles-like reputation in terms of rubbing players the wrong way). So I'm pretty relieved about that. To be honest I'm slightly relieved at not having Collins in here too. But I still think you are projecting out, saying if it turns out good then Pax will be a genius. Of course it will. But nobody can know that either. We're all just sitting here talking in terms of what it looks like from the outset. Plus, I can't even really say it was Pax that did this hire. Reinsdorf seems to have had his hooks in this process to a large degree. Do you trust that Jerry is able to read a no-experience coach, if it turns out it was really him making the call and not Pax?

No, it doesn't. Also, I didn't realize that we had to get lucky for Paxson's evaluation of the guy to be right. There's no way Paxson's evaluation can be based on anything but "gut" because nobody's ever seen the guy coach, that's why.

Then why not bring someone in who you KNOW will implement the system you want, David? And one who you know is capable of implementing that system? You still haven't answered that question, and it's pretty much the whole bag of beans.

Or not. You really don't know anything about him to know whether or not it's a terrible choice. Sure, he has no formal coaching experience (he has "coached" with the Suns during his time there, although obviously not from the bench). I'd sure as hell take it over one of these retreads we were looking at. Given the fact that Paxson has interviewed him (and a ton of other candidates) and I'm sure done a fair amount of research and still put his ass on the line with him, I'll give it time before I deem it a "terrible, terrible" choice. My hope is that he's a D'Antoni type of guy. There's really no way of knowing, though, until we hear (and see) more about him. So you're saying it's a good choice because nobody knows anything about him? How does that work, exactly? I'll give it time too. That's not really the question though, is it. The question is, how can Del Negro be the best choice when nobody has an inkling how he will do, including Paxson? For all he (or anyone else) knows, Del Negro will simply fold under the pressure of being a coach. Obviously we all hope it works out. But even if it does, this simply can not have been the best choice. We're now relying on luck. Tell me where I said anything like that. The fact is, we know about 1/100000th as much as Paxson knows about the guy. There's no way it can, on the first day, be deemed a bad (or TERRIBLE) hire by people who know absolutely nothing. I didn't know that the hire had to be deemed (or could be) either good or bad the day it was made, especially when we have little to nothing to go on to make such an evaluation. Your first sentence clearly suggests people should be OK with it because nothing is known about him. The real fact is, even Paxson can't know nearly as much about Del Negro as he would about other candidates who have at least shown that they are coaches. It's not asking too much to hire a guy who at least has a resume. You seem to be saying that it's not a terrible choice if we get lucky and he works out. The reality is, we shouldn't have to get lucky to find a good coach.

Or not. You really don't know anything about him to know whether or not it's a terrible choice. Sure, he has no formal coaching experience (he has "coached" with the Suns during his time there, although obviously not from the bench). I'd sure as hell take it over one of these retreads we were looking at. Given the fact that Paxson has interviewed him (and a ton of other candidates) and I'm sure done a fair amount of research and still put his ass on the line with him, I'll give it time before I deem it a "terrible, terrible" choice. My hope is that he's a D'Antoni type of guy. There's really no way of knowing, though, until we hear (and see) more about him. So you're saying it's a good choice because nobody knows anything about him? How does that work, exactly? I'll give it time too. That's not really the question though, is it. The question is, how can Del Negro be the best choice when nobody has an inkling how he will do, including Paxson? For all he (or anyone else) knows, Del Negro will simply fold under the pressure of being a coach. Obviously we all hope it works out. But even if it does, this simply can not have been the best choice. We're now relying on luck.

He's clearly just trying to fool you into thinking he's good.

Which is probably why Lou goes crazy on him when he starts getting behind every hitter. He was good last night. I'm not getting my hopes up that he will do it consistently though, because he's shown that he can't.