Transmogrified Tiger

With Barrett having been drafted as an infielder, that means the 7 of the 8 positions players in the game are infielders. Stupid Burnitz.

Pffft. My logic is undeniable.

Yeah, Barrett decided to wait until after they were behind to pad his stats.

I think we saw enough of Hill to know he wasn't ready and needed another pitch or two. 04/04 - 08/24 IP H R ER BB K HR PC BB/9 K/9 HR/9 WHIP ERA Rusch 106.7 126 54 50 43 87 10 1907 3.63 7.34 0.84 1.58 4.22 Hill 21.0 24 20 20 13 21 3 426 5.57 9.00 1.29 1.76 8.57 21 innings? Seriously?

It was a foul ball that was nearly out of play. Doesn't seem like something that I'd get too mad at Jerry for.

he is when Aramis is on the DL. Check Barrett's numbers v. LHP. He absolutely crushes them.

Did he say something about the board? I'm stuck at work..... Look at the comments section below his recent blog entry. That's what people are referring to. Also, Len mentioned the site in a previous game in response to an e-mail, and obviously checked it out to report that there were articles on the site and such. If you search "Len + shout out" there might be a video clip of the reference somewhere around here.

Would you really rather build a team around which veteran is a worse option against righties? You may not have noticed, but Karros and Simon got the same invitation to leave that Choi got. I'm not talking about building a team around him, I'm talking about Baker's refusal to play young players, even when it's in the best short-term, as well as long-term, interests of the franchise. I'd rather have seen Choi play against RHP because we would have performed better and won more games, and at the same time been able to evaluate more how he fit into our long term plans.

That's not the point. Lawton having a bad 75 at bats doesn't make him less "fundamentally sound" than when he was with the Pirates. That's what the article is about, not predicting future performance.

Yeah i mean Lawton he just has no eye at the plate whatsoever. This is a bogus criticism. Is he supposed to be perfect. Whatta joke. Yeah, a player with Lawton's career resume swinging at a pitch like that is far from a fundamental flaw.

The Cubs won 90 games in 1998, 88 in 2001, 88 in 2003 and 89 in 2004. They'll be lucky to win 80 this year. They've already regressed back to the pre-2003 performances, and they did it by sticking with the theory of relying on "proven veterans" over "untested prospects". Did you read the rest of my post? It's one thing to play "untested prospects", but you need prospects that are any good in the first place. The Cubs don't have all that many that are close enough to Chicago to warrant such a drastic overhaul to get them on the team. They can't go all young, but there are plenty of spots to fit guys like Fontenot (backup 3b/2b), Theriot (utility/ss), Bacon (pr/backup OF), (Kelton backup of/1b/emergency 3b), Murton (starting corner OF or backup OF if they sign some studs), Sing (backup 1b/of), Greenberg (backup of) and not to mention all the possible pitching candidates. There's nothing wrong with going with some guys like that instead of going back to the well again to overspend on crappy veterans. I just have a big problem with equating "giving up" with "going young" it's a bogus line of reasoning. Of all the players you listed, all of them sans Murton you listed as bench players. I don't have a problem with that at all, especially since most of them have the ceiling of a good reserve/spot starter. What I'm saying is that throwing half those guys in the everyday lineup is a terrible idea. The positional prospects just aren't that strong, so unfortunately in this case, "going young" in that instance would essentially be "giving up", barring some unforseen breakouts.

Here's your Minor League POY, the artist formerly known as Carlos Enrique Nolasco. Why do you say? At age 22, he's been dominating in the Southern League. He leads the league in K's, he's 5th in IP, 2nd in Wins, and 4th in ERA. He's been a consistently strong performer. His 3.15 ERA, 9.68 K/9, and 4/1 BB/K ratio all rank better than his robust career totals. But honestly, what's a voting campaign without comparing yourselves to the candidates? Let's consider: Nolasco v. Eric Patterson: Nolasco is the same age as Eric, and yet he's TWO LEVELS HIGHER in the minor league foodchain, and having stellar results at that age. Also note the fact that Nolasco is so good that he skipped Low A ball altogether. Nolasco v. Brandon Sing: These two are at the same level, but Sing is TWO YEARS OLDER than Ricky. You want to know how well Sing did at AA when he was 22? 209/.256/.367/.623. Embarrassing, get him out of here. Nolasco v. Rich Hill: Ricky is THREE YEARS YOUNGER than good old Rich Hill, who before this season had never even been to AA. Rich Hill at age 22? 2.07 WHIP with a 8.36 ERA at Boise. No contest here. Nolasco v. Sean Gallagher: As has been stated before, Nolasco is so good that he never had to play in the low A Midwest league. Sure Gallagher's put up some nice numbers in Low A ball. But really, who hasn't? Justin Jones put up a great year at Lansing, now he's in obscurity, long gone for Nomar. Billy Petrick put up a fine season in A ball, now his arm is about to fall off. Andy Sisco had a good year at Lansing, then sucked it up at Daytona, and now he may never be a starting pitcher again. Jason Wylie dominated Lansing as a closer, now he has a 4+ ERA for Daytona 2 years later. The list goes on and on, pitching well in the Midwest league just doesn't cut it like doing it in AA. The Cubs obviously saw this and didn't demean Ricky's talents. Nolasco dominated a much higher level at a similar age appropriate-ness(that's a word). Let's see if Sean can make it to the big boys in AA before we anoint him with anything. As anyone can clearly see, Ricky Nolasco is the most deserving candidate for Minor League POY. He's been doing it for years, dominating levels at a young age, and he deserves the respect of this award. Do the right thing, Vote for Carlos "Ricky" Enrique Nolasco!

Why thank you. I figured a smear campaign would be necessary to overcome the biases of others. :D In depth praise of Nolasco forthcoming.

The Cubs won 90 games in 1998, 88 in 2001, 88 in 2003 and 89 in 2004. They'll be lucky to win 80 this year. They've already regressed back to the pre-2003 performances, and they did it by sticking with the theory of relying on "proven veterans" over "untested prospects". Did you read the rest of my post? It's one thing to play "untested prospects", but you need prospects that are any good in the first place. The Cubs don't have all that many that are close enough to Chicago to warrant such a drastic overhaul to get them on the team.

Just say no to Sing or Patterson! Nolasco for POY! Gallagher may also be considered an acceptable alternative in the case of Nolasco killing your dog

It's not hard at all to do around Wrigley. Half the time you have to try to not find him. :( There is a mysterious lack of him punching woo-woo in the face in that picture.

I wonder what it would look like with a larger sample, like all major league teams this year.

Vargas looks like a good prospect, a lot of early success in the big leagues at age 22.

Cleveland has a good, deep pen, and Riske will be too expensive for their low budget. They get pretty decent return for a middle relief/setup guy. Also, Wagner would be the closer in the situation Hoops outlined. I dont know much about there pen but at $2.5M he's not an albertross. They could do much better than wellymeyer and mitre. To be honest i think todd sucks. Sure he throws hard but his offspeed pitch isnt good and his control still needs work. If you look at his as an outsider like cleveland what is so special about him. So when do you trade for Riske? After you sign Wagner? By that time if you miss out on billy you got Riske as your closer and its too late (post dec 15, or whatever that date is) to resign Dempster. Its safer and easier to go with Dempster than Riske. Even if Riske is an upgrade over Dempster it aint by much. Resign Dempster, go after Billy, if that fals through then go after Riske. Cleveland can't afford to pay their non-closer 2.5 million, they're in a pretty tight financial bind. For a middle reliever/setup man, I'd say that we're borderline overpaying for Riske.

A) What progress has this organization made? The big league team has fallen drastically since 2003, the minor leagues are nowhere near what they were like in the late 90's early 00's. B) Why does a youth movement equate to giving up a season? I am so sick of the attitude that you can't win with youth. Atlanta is doing it right now. Oakland has done it time and time again. C) This front office has shown absolutely no ability to capitalize on their ability to outspend most other teams, wasting money on mediocre replacable veterans. I'm not one to celebrate mediocrity, but I'd like not to regress back to the pre-2003 performance and expectations. Playing youth doesn't mean losing or giving up, but going full out with one certainly hurts your chances. Cedeno, Murton, and Pie are really the only viable starting prospects we have. Pie isn't ready, Murton may not hit for enough power to be a corner OF, and Cedeno looks like he'll be a decent SS. Greenberg, Fontenot, maybe Frese/Bacon could be good reserves, but having them in conjunction with the above in the lineup would be a disaster. You know I'm not about paying mediocre veterans, but at the same time, people are suggesting Lee/Fontenot/Cedeno/Ramirez/Murton/Patterson/Pie as our lineup, that's going to lose a ton of games for us. I have no problem with playing youngsters, and as you probably know I prefer them in a matchup of similar talents, but going young for the sake of going young doesn't improve the team.

Also of note, even his typically bad numbers against LHP from previous years are better than Neifi's over that same time.

Catcher ERA is a very unreliable tool to measure a catcher's effectiveness. Barrett's been one of if not the top offensive catcher in the NL. We'd be hard pressed to find a better one, and he's signed to a pretty long-term, yet very reasonable contract.

Cleveland has a good, deep pen, and Riske will be too expensive for their low budget. They get pretty decent return for a middle relief/setup guy. Also, Wagner would be the closer in the situation Hoops outlined.

Woohoo, more bench time for Walker so Neifi can play!

Why are so many people essentially throwing away 2006 by suggesting a youth movement? The Cubs don't have that many positional prospects that are good enough to plug in, but they do have a solid farm system and a high payroll that they can revamp the team for success in 2006 and the long-term. Now, there might be doubts that this management can effectively do that, but essentially giving up on the progress the organization has made seems wrong to me.