XZero771679666304

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness. it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player. you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works. This is just a cynical joke, right? You don't actually believe that. Do you? I only ask because after making what seemed like an incredibly sarcastic joke, you then used it as the basis of an argument that you seem to expect to hold water. why would that be a joke? he's been terrible his entire career. therefore, when he has a short run of success, it seems logical to write it off as a run of good luck. or do you prefer to consider his 6-7 years of crap just a wacky turn of bad fortune? Well I thought it was a joke because otherwise it is incredibly insulting. I can see a guy with Rusch's past putting together a good month and chalking it up to luck, but not 14 months of very good to excellent performance. To say that a guy who has the talent and worked hard enough to make it to the big leagues would only have a year and a half of success because of luck is completely out of touch with reality. People don't have extended period of success at something that they have dedicated their life to succeeding at because of luck. They struggle and fail and struggle and fail and then, one day, they figure it out unless, of course it is only for a few weeks. Or if it is inconsistent, up and down all year long. But that simply doesn't accurately describe how Rusch had performed for the Cubs heading into this season. Does it? Do you know what it is like to compete with the best in the world at something? To do what it takes to succeed at that level? Luck? No offense, but that has to be the most out of touch with reality notion I've heard in a long time on this board. In the context of nearly 10 seasons, 14 months is statistically insignificant. just under 10 total seasons, about 55 months. 14 good months equates to a percentage of 25-26%. That percentage may make a decent batting average, but for a pitcher it isn't acceptable. And if you are referring to his 14 months with the Cubs, 7 have been very good, 2 mediocre, and 5 abysmal. About 50/50. Not good. And his very bad stretches have been more extreme than his good stretches. Insulting or not, what abuck said was dead on accurate. Glendon has been in the league long enough to get an accurate read on him, to know what you can expect and what is anomaly. His decent stretches have been anomalous, there is not logical or empirical argument to the contrary, no matter how you try and spin it. None of his failure can be regarded as "bad luck". Glendon has the talent to be in the majors, but just barely. And don't delude yourself by saying just because a player has had any degree of success it means they belong. The league is full of players whose 5 minutes of success have earned them a longer stay than they deserve. Few have managed to wear out their welcome as long as Glendon. 10 years the vast majority of them ranging from bad to abysmal. This isn't some kid who just needs to be given his shot. He has proven that he is not good. He has been up long enough for all the luck and ups and downs to play out. 10 seasons is longer than necessary for the law of averages to pass judgement on Rusch. Baseball is not about humanitarian and feel good notions about players. It's a business, and Rusch's stock is not good. Rusch has had an up and down career, but the valleys have been far deeper and longer than the peaks have been high. His stuff is marginal. His numbers are terrible, and getting worse with every trip he takes to the mound. How much time should his good 2004 buy him? He latest bad stretch has already been nearly as long as the sum total of his good stretches. And don't say he was decent last year, he wasn't. A WHIP of over 1.5 is BAD. Go ahead and bring up Schmidt again. He has had a very good career, and has earned the benefit of the doubt. Rusch hasn't. We can eliminate the pitchers withless that 150 inning because most of the were either demoted or cut loose, while Glendon kept getting his undeserved shots. If you are determined to defend Glendon, go ahead. But your argument is totally flawed, more sentiment than logic.

Who else remembers the game in '89 when the Cubs were down 9-0 to the Astros after the first few innings and came back to win? That was one of my all time favorites. Or Frank Castillo's 8 2/3 of no hit ball against the Cards in '95? (stupid Gilkey) The Sandberg game (June 23rd 1984) Grace's game winning 3-run homer off Aguilera w/2 outs in the 9th in '89 Grace hitting for the cycle in '93

There is no such thing. yeah there is. If someone believes in a player hitting meaningless homers, then they must also believe in "clutch". They are opposite ends of the same spectrum.

Your comfort level isn't important to the Cubs. Not to sound mean, but I don't think Hendry goes around claims that he needs MPrior--a Cubs fan on the MB---to be comfortable with the decision on KW. My guess is, if they are going to make the move, somehow your "comfort" level won't be a part of the decision. Your really could have saved this. It's pretty unnecessary. I don't think the Cubs are consulting you for your opinion on the matter, either, but that didn't stop you from expressing it, did it? Yeah, that was totally unnecessary. As for Wood, at this point I am in favor of putting him in a position too earn as much of his salary as possible. IMO, that is in the rotation. With Howry, Eyre, Dempster and Williamson at the back end of the pen, Woody's presence would be almost superfluous. The only real impact he can make at this point is as a starter.

Chances are that Fox would have gone down eventually, but that was really, really bad. It was so stupid it was stunning.

I would, which is crazy. Spend a few years in Chicago and then we'll talk. Give me a break. The success of the Cubs is priority 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. It doesn't matter who a trade is with, if it makes the Cubs better we should do it. At no point should it EVER be of concern how much flak the fans will take if the trade doesn't work out as planned. You spend a few years in Chicago too and then we'll have this discussion. I have spent a great deal of time in Chicago, and probably hate the Sox more than you can probably concieve of. If you think a trade with the Sox can help the team, you make it. For one, I don't think a veteran reliever is likely to haunt us for years. Secondly, it's not like the Cubs haven't gotten the best of the Sox before (Bell for Sosa). Thirdly, sucking so badly after the Sox won the series is far worse than the fallout from any trade.

I would, which is crazy. Spend a few years in Chicago and then we'll talk. So what you're essentially saying is that on any given day, you'd rather be able to make fun of a Sox fan than see the Cubs win, if given the choice between the two? That sounds like the attitude of a Sox fan.

You think it is easy being in the Top 10 Party Schools for the last 25 years? Or being #1 the last two years? It comes at a price, which is usually a hangover. But we will somehow try to soldier on. I was born in Madison and used to live on Mifflin. I know how it is, even if I didn't participate.

I was thinking earlier today that if Berman notices him, he'll probably call him Carlos Lady Marmol-ade. How embarassing that would be.

Hill and Guzman, I agree. But his sample size isn't worth really comparing Marmol to Marshall. Marmol as of right now is a reliever, and Marshall is a starter. With that said....if Marmol is a starter in future, I would like to see the Cubs bring him along like the Astros did with Oswalt, and keep him in the bullpen, till he if/is when he ready to start. If not...Marmol is looking like a dominate closer in training. Marmol was a starter in the minors, no? I'd give him Glendon's slot in the rotation.

It's only been a few innings, but Marmol has looked better than Marshall, Hill or Guzman. Considerably better.

You were in the wrong bar. Madison is known for having different bars for different beers (one of the many reasons it has the highest per capita bars per people in the US). In downtown, places like The Pub are Miller Establishments. The Bud bars down there are near Frat Row or up towards the Capitol like The Plaza. The Irish Pub about midway on State St. serves mostly Coors and Euro beers. And its like that all over town. Budweiser is trying to change this. They are decreasing prices in the city and have openly announced an attack on Miller. Miller has countered, so it looks like good times for the Kiddies this coming fall. There is an article about the Beer Wars on The Daily Cardinal's site that was written in April. It is a good read. Having the highest bar/people ratio is nothing to be proud of.

So that makes the smell one million times better than Busch II, huh? :D Give it time, eventually it'll take on that lovely "St. Louis" smell. Actually, now that I've lived in Chicago for about a year, I can say that Chicago often stinks. Don't get me wrong, I love this city, but it stinks in places. I think it has something to do with the storm drains. They all vent right out into the air. In St. Louis the storm drains are built into the curbs and have solid coverings that keep the smells contained. Here in Chicago they just vent right out into the air so anywhere within a 20 foot radius of one absolutely reeks on a hot day. As far as St. Louis goes, I have yet to visit a town on the Mississippi that didn't stink, but the STL stinks more than most. Chicago definitely has a smell, but it isn't nearly as offensive. Then again, I don't recall spending much time around many storm drains.

First off, Encarnacion sucks, and a 700+ OPS is not a guarantee. Secondly, what Lee does is nothing like what Pujols does, not even close. Maybe Aramis, but not Derrek. I don't recall anyone taking umbridge with Lee or even Ramirez for their home run admiration, but I can remember at least once when a catcher (wasn't it Gary Bennett when he was with the Pads?) got in Albert's grill for lingering around the batter's box gawking at one of his homers. I like Pujols, but when you're not even halfway to first when the ball leaves the yard, you're showboating.

time to bust out the ole Cub conversion calculator... ...Cubs say 2 weeks so 2x3+2/2 +20= roughly a month :lol: It was supposed to be June 10th. I don't recall ever hearing anything from the Cubs other than mid-June.

Has Jones' average reached .300 yet?

Thanks, Rolen.

Believing there are psychologocal factors that factor into the game and blaming Baker for much of the Cubs' struggles are not mutually exclusive.

http://www.progressiveboink.com/dugout

I think that they are generally either very funny, or extremely lame. The funny:lame ratio is probably about 1:1, IMO.

No, only to provide the evidence that supports that he is those things. Saying that someone is stupid and irrational is a pretty difficult one to support. Wouldn't you agree? Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Its difficult to know. And you might be right. But then again, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary as well. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he makes moves you disagree with and fail to understand and that you think he is a bad manager? Or don't you think that there is any evidence on the other side of your position? When his decisions are consistently contrary to common sense and statistical probablilities, you have to look further than decision to decision analysis. The man makes the same mistakes over and over again, and the fallibility of those decisions is obvious to even the casual observer. Since these decisions have negative results the VAST majority of the time, yet are repeated ad nauseum, how long can you avoid questioning his thought processes and ability to properly analyze what he is seeing on the field? Honestly, when many of the moves he makes fly in the face of incontravertible logic, how can you insinuate that it is just a disagreement based on perception? When he puts low OBP guys at the top of the order, or consistenly plays guys who statistical production is abysmal over guys who are more productive, you can't say we just "don't agree" with his methodology. It's piss poor methodology, and that is NOT debatable.

Heh, I was pretty adamant in my disgust at the Wrigley crowd last season (along with Corey and the coaches). Lets not boo neifi either! He's HUSTLING on those grounders to second! Pierre, too. Do they boo Neifi? I don't notice that much, even though he deserves as much as anyone. But the booing of Patterson reached disgusting proportions last year. He deserved to be booed over his plate discipline, but it just got to be ridiculous. He was clearly the team lightning rod.

You'll get no argument from me on that point. He built an awesome team (on paper) prior to the 2004 season, traded for Nomar, and it has been unmitigated disaster ever since. It's hard to remember another GM who has gone from looking so good to so bad in such a short period of time. It's really pathetic.

Yes, a nice signing if your sights are on creating a .500 ballclub. World Series champs aim a tad bit higher. If we had a thumper in left and a better run producer in CF, Jones would be perfectly adequate in RF. Too bad we don't. Having said that, there wasn't much else available this past offseason (which wouldn't have been an issue had Hendry signed someone last offseason). Yes, yes. There's never anyone available. That's why we suck. ..........I'm goading you because I know you know better..... Hey, I am blaming Hendry for this mess. But who else was available this last offseason (and I don't want to hear Giles)? Hendry messed up this year's OF last offseason.

Yes, a nice signing if your sights are on creating a .500 ballclub. World Series champs aim a tad bit higher. If we had a thumper in left and a better run producer in CF, Jones would be perfectly adequate in RF. Too bad we don't. Having said that, there wasn't much else available this past offseason (which wouldn't have been an issue had Hendry signed someone last offseason).