soccer10k

At this point, I wouldn't do anything. I wouldn't rule out an extention but I wouldn't guarantee one. I think the smartest thing is to just let the season play out. They should base their decision on how the team plays if/when the combination of Prior/Wood/Lee comes back. It's fully possible that by the time Lee comes back the team is too far out to contend. But if Baker can get the full team to play well the last 2 months of the year then I think an extention should be considered. But if those three guys come back and the team continues to suck, then he shouldn't get an extention.

The only thing Rusch concentrates on is finding the nearest all you can eat buffet.

Sorry to seem like an English teacher but it's not loose, it's lose. loose ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ls) adj. loos·er, loos·est 1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks. 2. Not taut, fixed, or rigid: a loose anchor line; a loose chair leg. 3. Free from confinement or imprisonment; unfettered: criminals loose in the neighborhood; dogs that are loose on the streets. 4. Not tight-fitting or tightly fitted: loose shoes. 5. Not bound, bundled, stapled, or gathered together: loose papers. 6. Not compact or dense in arrangement or structure: loose gravel. 7. Lacking a sense of restraint or responsibility; idle: loose talk. 8. Not formal; relaxed: a loose atmosphere at the club. 9. Lacking conventional moral restraint in sexual behavior. 10. Not literal or exact: a loose translation. 11. Characterized by a free movement of fluids in the body: a loose cough; loose bowels. I personally like the example for definition 11.

Depends on who the pitcher is. If Maddux has two or three bad starts you aren't going to consider removing him as a starter. But if the player is a rookie then it's different. And if the pitcher's name is Rusch, the answer is 0 starts.

They've got to make a mistake and accidentally not loose at some point. I think it is perfectly plausable. Soon, I really think they will pull out of this dismal spiral towards hades and start to win a few. This, however, does not take away the fact that they are a sucky teem and will likely play 500 ball at best, at worst keep loosing 2 out of 3. So, here is a question: Lets say that the Cubs on average loose 2 out of every 5 until they get Wood, Prior, and Lee back. Once they have these players back, where in the standings will they be? Will they already be out of it? Will those player's returns make a difference where they will win 2 out of every 3? Or just play .500 ball? I'm guessing that once we get those guys back, we will be a .500 team (or perhaps a little bit better) but will have dug ourselves enough of a hole that we can't make it out. ...um, he said that because there is no game tomorrow. :lol: At least somebody looked at the schedule.

The Cubs will not lose on Monday.

But then what happens if Nomar started the season on the DL with the Cubs (as he did with the Dodgers)? Does everybody rip Hendry for signing a guy with a long injury history? It seems like a lose-lose situation for Hendry.

close... cf. pierre ss. nef 1b. mabry 3b. aram rf. jones c. barrett 2b. hairston lf. bynum Is Bynum really starting or is this just speculation?

Like I said earlier in the thread, the key is Jacque's contract, which everybody agrees isn't his fault but Hendry's. I think most people wouldn't care nearly as much if Jones wasn't having a good year if the Cubs had the option to bring him back next year. As it is, Jones will be here for 2 more years barring a trade. Obviously people wouldn't be happy if Jones sucked and had a one year deal but there wouldn't be as much talk about it. As I said before, I'm not saying that it would have been a good signing if Jones only had a one year deal, but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as the three year deal he received.

who's trying to say that? I got the impression you were: If I misinterpreted that statement I apologize.

His 2004-2005 numbers are significantly worse than his 2003 stats, though. If the two go to his splits of the past couple of seasons, he'll have another bad season. That's an excellent point. I don't have the numbers but just from looking at his year by year stats you are correct.

Win totals for Oakland since 1998 (their last losing season) starting with 1999: 87, 91, 102, 103, 96, 91, 88 for an average of 94 per year which includes 3 division titles and 1 wild card appearance. Yup, that would suck to be a fan of a winning team every year. Don't try to say that the A's haven't won anything in the postseason. The fact is that they win. Whatever Beane is doing it works and works well.

but it is a positive Jones thread. I mean he is better than average for the NL. that was the whole point and people are still mad. i just dont get it. I'm not debating you on Jacque's numbers. I'm all for a postive thread. But my point is made with the title of the thread. How is anybody going to know that this is a positive Jacque Jones thread by looking at the title. You can't even tell it's about Jones unless you actually read the thread.

I just figured all the Dusty haters would say that Dusty somehow overworked Mitre while he was on the Cubs. have you read the documentation of how wood and prior were abused? Because a comparison to mitre makes no sense. There are dusty haters but there is also reality - and that reality is that prior and wood were abused and now they are injured. pitchers do get hurt without being abused but that doesn't justify their abuse. I know. I guess I should have specified that the Dusty claim was just a joke. So now everybody knows that I was just joking. I did want to report that Mitre was on the DL since some people on the board like to follow former Cubs players.

no, not after 20+ pages of anti-Jones sentiment. i need blood in the water. And that's where the problem lies. This isn't a positive Jones thread. This is an I told you so whether you meant it or not. Start a "Positive Jacque Jones" thread if you want to, because this surely isn't one.

I think that's the key. If we signed him to a one year deal I think most people on the board would say "he sucks, but at least he'll be gone after this year." Most of the complaining, and rightfully so, is due to the fact that we signed him for three years. I'm not saying that it would have been a good signing if we only gave him a 1 year deal, but it would be nowhere near as bad of a deal.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But i am not hating. I just said in the earlier 20+ pg hatefest that Jones needs a fair shake and pointed to the Boston-Renteria disaster last season. Sometimes it just takes a player 1 month to adjust to the league. One of those crazy things. But we do need to get more positive posting going in here. Need to find some diamonds in this rough. So your thoughts about letting Ramirez, a superior hitter (and possibly better defensively so far), leave after his April were justified and shouldn't be called out later on? If Jones keeps up those splits against righties, I think we'll need to call Ripley's. Are Jacque's splits against righties going to go down? Yes. But his splits against lefties are going to go up. He's not going to end the year hitting .056 against lefties if he plays the whole year 2006: .273/.311/.495/.806 2003-2005: .268/.322/.443/.765 With the exception of the slugging, he's giving us exactly what we should have expected out of him. I'm NOT saying that it was a good signing, I'm just saying that what Jones has done this year shouldn't be a surprise.

I just figured all the Dusty haters would say that Dusty somehow overworked Mitre while he was on the Cubs.

Sergio Mitre was placed on the 15 day DL today with inflammation in his right shoulder. http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060513&content_id=1451820&vkey=news_fla&fext=.jsp&c_id=fla I bet this is Dusty's fault as well eh?

Platoon anyone? BTW, I think that this might be the 15938th time this has been suggested since the season started.

Both of these make complete sense. Maddux is one of the few pitchers in the league that I would trust to say that he's okay to stay in the game and actually be telling the truth.

That's just bad luck in this case. If one of your middle relievers blows the game then you can question why he brought that reliever in. But if a closer blows the game, that's all on the closer. Like somebody else said (not sure if it was in this thread or another one) this is what happens to a team that's on a losing streak.

I believe Nomar had the whole "not all that excited about playing" problem before he came to the Cubs. He wasn't too happy in 2004 with Boston and that's the main reason they traded him. And I'm sure Nomar was really trying to completely tear his groin also. That was all part of his master plan to get away from Dusty. It was one of the most freakish serious injuries I've ever seen. At least consider the possibility that lack of preparation before the game contributed to that one. At least *consider* it. Wouldn't that be his own fault though not Baker's? Isn't it a player's job to get himself ready to play for the game. Taking batting/fielding practice is one thing, but shouldn't an adult, and somebody who has been in the league for a number of years know how to get himself ready to play. I don't think any of what happened to Nomar is Baker's fault. Yeah, it would be his own fault. I'd like a climate of winning on the North Side though, and we have a climate of losing-----for 97 years. I look to ownership/GM/Manager to provide a climate of winning first, then the players follow suit. Does anyone seriously doubt that if Nomar resigned he would have either proceeded directly to the DL or gone into a Pierre-esque slump? Of course he would have. I don't know about the slump, but based on Nomar's history I would have been surprised if he DIDN'T get hurt this year had he resigned with the Cubs. And considering he started the season on the DL with the Dodgers, that would be a pretty good assumption.

Just curious, what do you mean by this? I think he means that it's been so long that Dempster had forgotten. Sorry, that was my bad. I got it now. I thought he might have meant that Dempster forgot what it was like to blow a game when he meant that Dempster hasn't had a save opportunity in a while because the Cubs sucked. Misunderstanding on my part.

I believe Nomar had the whole "not all that excited about playing" problem before he came to the Cubs. He wasn't too happy in 2004 with Boston and that's the main reason they traded him. And I'm sure Nomar was really trying to completely tear his groin also. That was all part of his master plan to get away from Dusty. It was one of the most freakish serious injuries I've ever seen. At least consider the possibility that lack of preparation before the game contributed to that one. At least *consider* it. Wouldn't that be his own fault though not Baker's? Isn't it a player's job to get himself ready to play for the game. Taking batting/fielding practice is one thing, but shouldn't an adult, and somebody who has been in the league for a number of years know how to get himself ready to play. I don't think any of what happened to Nomar is Baker's fault.