NorthsideAvenger

I don't believe they've ever scored more than 26. The Cubs FRANCHISE once score 36 runs in a game against Louisville back in 1897. :shock: I remember day as if it was yesterday...aw...memories... Ya know..... I vaguely recall the CUBS beating Louisville the day before Custer bought it out in South Dakota !! Ya know, I vaguely recall seeing some "unmanlike" guy claiming to be a guy name "Clint Eastwood" wearing some very gay like cowboy clothes, claiming to be from the future.

I don't believe they've ever scored more than 26. The Cubs FRANCHISE once score 36 runs in a game against Louisville back in 1897. :shock: I remember day as if it was yesterday...aw...memories... Ya know..... I vaguely recall the CUBS beating Louisville the day before Custer bought it out in South Dakota !! Fred wrong on a stat?? :shock: Not "wrong," but overlooked. And technically...it wasn't the Cubs per se, it was your fighting Chicago Colts, same franchise to. :D

Wouldn't work. Games spent on the DL don't count toward the suspension. He'd have to serve the 10 game suspension immediately after coming off the DL. That happened recently with Eric Gagne. Not to sound like a prick, my apologizes...but reread the bolded part. It was a nice thought, just to mess with Selig.

chicagosports.com First: Sammy a fifth rd pick got more in $7.25 signing bonus, then Upton the former #1 overall pick got. I wonder how Upton feels now? :shock: Second: Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the president of baseball can't personally get himself involved with a MLB franchise. I know he has done it before (ARod trade, and the Expos/Nats situation), but to me...Selig had NO RIGHT to interfered in the middle of a transaction. Once again, Selig has proven himself to be the biggest dummy in sports.

Of course:

I don't believe they've ever scored more than 26. The Cubs FRANCHISE once score 36 runs in a game against Louisville back in 1897. :shock: I remember day as if it was yesterday...aw...memories...

The Cubs actually had a discussion with Piven about this before it happened and he told them he wouldn't use the "B" word, but then did it anyway. You gotta love it. Stickin it to the man. besides Z flirting with a not hitter this been the best Cubs moment this season for me. Shades of Steve McMichael... :lol: Tag team?

LaTroy Hawkins' ERA as a Cub - 2.76. That statement is so wrong it's not even funny. 69% Save Percentage disagrees. A good percentage of those came as a set-up man, where he only had opportunities to lose the lead and never an opportunity to get a save. Every set-up man in the majors has a dreadful save percentage, because every time they blow a lead, it's a blow save, but when they do their job, it's a hold and not a save. In any event, the notion that a guy that gave up less than 3 runs per 9 innings (substantially better than league average) is somehow the "worst" Cub pitcher over any period of time is insane. In fact, it's so insane that I can't even believe you're taking that position. If I remember correctly, Hawkins was very good as a setup man but moved to closer early in the season and had a terrible time holding a lead ever since. Maybe you take out a couple blown saves, but it's still an attrocious percentage for a closer. 80% is pretty much the bare min. to hold the position on a halfway decent team. srbin; Hawkins was GREAT as a set-up (which he should have been kept in THAT role) as was well-worth his contract. The problem was Baker thinking that Hawkins could close (NM neither Kelly or Gardenhire couldn't get him to close in Minny), is when he wasn't worth his contract. So, Hawkins is eliminated from the worst pitchers in recent memories that played for the Cubs. Estes Rusch Fassero Those three are tied for the worst pitchers in the last 15 yrs on the Cubs.

You know how the Cubs can beat the 10 game suspension? By announcing that they have put Barrett on the 15 Day DL. I mean he had miss three games due to his back. The could retroactive it the day he missed his first game. That way...all Barrett would miss, in theory, is 5 games. But I know somehow that is no allowed, but hey.... :twisted: just to miss with baseball, and to see Kenny Williams get crazy again, would be well worth it.

I agree. I was a fan or Rothschild but it's wearing down. I never saw anything special from Spier, but I think a lot of people here like him for some reason. I think people like him because he has been solid at 3B. Having wavin wendell as your predecessor will do that to ya. Yeah, I'd just rather not keep anyone around connected to Hendry and Baker. It's nothing personal against him, but since he hasn't done anything noteworthy, flush this whole thing down the toliet and start over. The only reason why Speier is connected with Baker, is because they are both on the staff. Speier is not a "Baker boy" and Speier replaced a "Baker Boy" in Wendall. I still prefer to keep Speier, seeing as I think he would make a solid bench coach and/or manager. If for nothing else, firing Baker means Rothschild, Pole, Clines, Sarge are gone...I can't say the Cubs would do anything BUT improve.

I personally believe that is Sammy had devoted himself to baseball strictly, HE would be the best pitcher in the 06 draft, and NOT Miller. But because of his "split commitments" we don't know where Sammy is in terms of development. Sammy is said to be able to hit low to mid 90s, touching high 90s alot of times. His off speed pitches are definately a work in progress, and depends on who you ask...some people likes Sammy slider, (I've heard it's been compare to Clement's, not sure how accurate that is, but if it's true... :shock: ) and some thinks is a sloppy curve. Nonetheless....Sammy is definately a FIRST RD PICK, that dropped due to his "football commitments." If the Cubs get him to drop football for good, then the Cubs, will without a doubt get the TRUE STEAL of the 2006 draft. He used to throw the loopy curve before this season and scrapped it for the slider. It's supposed to be a better pitch but he still has a lot of work on it. if we have to pay him this much money, i don't see how it could be considered a steal. also, in response to those who say he'd be a better prospect if he concentrated only on baseball, i'd like to add that he'd also be a better prospect if he could throw a 110 mph screwball. neither appear to be the case though. The fact that at worst he was considered a 2 RD talent (could had gone in the first rd to supplemental) and the Cubs got him in the 5TH RD. That, to me, is considered a steal. Now he has to produce in order to be considered a "steal", tho. I wouldn't say he would be a better prospect in he stuck to baseball, but I will say this...he would have a better chance at living up to his talent, if he chose one sport, and dedicated himself to it.

They had to do something like that to even get him to sign. I like this deal...we won't be out much if he sticks to football...and if he plays he could be well worth the money... Agreed. If he picks football, the Cubs are out only 500k, but if he picks baseball, then they could possibly get the bigget steal of the 06 draft. This is definately a worthwhile gamble.

No, it's extremely back-loaded. By the time those years come around, he'll have to have picked one sport. The Cubs did a "smart move" by backloading the contract? Who knew Hendry could pull one from his bottom.

The problem is that the Cubs will end up paying some or most of the salary to "dump" these players, so it might be a great idea to play the kids, but the Cubs certainly won't be saving much money. At this point, I don't care if the Cubs save money, if they can move the "bums" off this team (Everybody knows then verbatim), then that would more the helpful to this team.

They've got that part down, it's the admitting it that is the problem. Then we as Cubs fans, need to forced an INTERVENTION around the Cubs management, and forced them to admit they are bad.... Hello, my name is Jim Hendry, and I have a problem with crappy players. Hello, my name is Dusty Baker, and I have a problem with having a man-love for all crappy veterans. Hello, my name, is NorthsiveAvenger, and I have a problem with sore eyes. From watching the Cubs.

Man, what I wouldn't give to get the remote control from Sandler's new movie "Click." Man, to be able to fast forward through the season, right now.....

Argue away the semantics, but both the trades you mentioned were head-scratchers at the time for most folks. We'll see if Tampa has really changed their steep price demands with a new GM. I'm not arguing "semantics", there is absolutely NO "absolute" in baseball. Even Albert Pujols can be traded. Highly unlikely, but still the possibility is there. And people are making Gomes out to be some kind of "savior" type hitter, which he is NOT. The suggestion that it would take a "Miguel Cabrera" type package to land Gomes, is downright LAUGHABLE. IMO, Gallagher and Guzman (talent wise) would be about right for Gomez, considering that lack of pitching, and the depth of OF prospects in the DRays system. With Gauthright/Dukes/Bankston (the KID has MONSTER power)/Young with Crawford and Baldelli, that's alot of talent. And, IMO, Gomes is NOT worth more then two very good prospects, which Gallagher and Guzman are. Guzman, is clearly as talented as Santana, or atleast has the stuff to rival Santana. Gallagher is SIMPLY going to win at the ML level, simply because he knows how to pitch. He's kind of a Mark Buehrle type pitcher, don't really have great stuff, but now how to used his stuff the best. Adding Guzman/Gallagher for Gomes makes more sense then trading Crawford for Santana. Call it semantics, which you would be clearly wrong, if you want, but the fact remains, Gomes is attainable for Gallagher/Guzman.

hmmm....nah...Hendry isn't bold enough to do that.. :evil: "One NL manager" try 85 percent of the Chicago fans believes the Cubs window is closed. Oh boy.....Hendry is definately a dunce, right now.

THAT is way too much. If it takes that much, then the Cubs are back in the same position, but with an soon-to-be-very expensive player and MORE questions about the pitching. Don't get me wrong, I love Cabrera, but I wouldn't try to acquire Cabrera, unless the deal is reasonable. And 5 young (ie cheap) players are not REASONABLE. I think the Cubs could get Jonny Gomes for Gallagher and Guzman, which would be worth it. No way Gallager and Guzman nets Gomes, or it should've been done yesterday. No way does Victor Zambrano nets Scott Kazmir.....oh wait...nm. No way does AJ alphabet nets Joe Nathan (All Star closer), Francisco Liriano (best young lefty prospect in the game) and Boof Bonser.....nm.. The fact is nobody can say "no way", and nobody can say what it would take to acquire somebody. The RIGHT term is "highly unlikely", not "no way." And I do think Gallagher (if he conitnues to pitch lights out) and Guzman continues to build on his last outing, along with a solid prospect could net Gomes and a relief prospect.

Well Dusty, it is call "hitting", you know the thing you do when you swing the bat, and hit the ball? Apparently your team don't comprehend this fact. It makes one wonder..... :-k Spring Training teams go over execution of plays, working on bunts, pick offs, getting the pitchers/hitters in shape for the season. It is also about getting playing time to knock off the rust on players, while taking a look at some of the young guys. In other words...it's about the team getting to know one another. With that said....What the heck where the Cubs doing in Spring Training? It wasn't working on "skills" for the season. Why do the Cubs even have Spring Training?

THAT is way too much. If it takes that much, then the Cubs are back in the same position, but with an soon-to-be-very expensive player and MORE questions about the pitching. Don't get me wrong, I love Cabrera, but I wouldn't try to acquire Cabrera, unless the deal is reasonable. And 5 young (ie cheap) players are not REASONABLE. I think the Cubs could get Jonny Gomes for Gallagher and Guzman, which would be worth it.

If Baker is truly going to this Murt/Bynum platoon, then why not institute an "opposite" hitting rule. If you hit LH, you must hit RH, and vice versa. Since most of the Cubs can't hit with their current style, why not change it up, and try and fool the opposing team.

Fixed.... :twisted: And it will be a Detroit sweep in Chicago.

Over/under of how long this current losing streak last?

Because Baker is desparately trying to win Manager of the Year? :wink: