soccer10k

I would say the Cubs have to play at least .550 ball when everybody comes for me to be okay with an extention. Playing .500 isn't good enough. I would think that when Prior, Wood, Miller, and Lee come back, the Cubs need to play .700 ball for at least a month for Hendry to offer him an extension. After all, the return of those players eliminates all of Baker's excuses. First, assuming Lee comes back by the end of July, that leaves August and September for the team to turn it around and I would expect them to play well for 2 months not 1. Second, expecting a team to play .700 ball is a bit excessive as that would mean a 113 win pace. I could see .600 ball as that would be a 97 win pace. But they would have to play really well after everybody gets back for an extention to be warranted. Not that it has a lot of bearing on the rest of the thread, but Lee should be back a month sooner than that. I know. I should have been more specific. I'm giving him time to get used to hitting a baseball again and being conservative with my estimate.

Your eyes and your memory have misled you. Choi had an OBP of .389 and an SLG of .496 (OPS of .885) when he was injured. But he still can't hit lefties. He never has been able to. That's a fact. And the key is those were his stats BEFORE he was injured. What has he done since then. You can state your case based on that but he's not that same player. I could make the argument that Sammy was still hitting well before he got beaned in the head and that should warrant a contract. But Sammy changed after that, teams know that, and that's why he isn't playing this year. Choi never could hit lefties, and after he suffered the concussion, he changed. And that right there is reason enough that Choi shouldn't play everyday. The guy at best is a platoon player.

I would say the Cubs have to play at least .550 ball when everybody comes for me to be okay with an extention. Playing .500 isn't good enough. I would think that when Prior, Wood, Miller, and Lee come back, the Cubs need to play .700 ball for at least a month for Hendry to offer him an extension. After all, the return of those players eliminates all of Baker's excuses. First, assuming Lee comes back by the end of July, that leaves August and September for the team to turn it around and I would expect them to play well for 2 months not 1. Second, expecting a team to play .700 ball is a bit excessive as that would mean a 113 win pace. I could see .600 ball as that would be a 97 win pace. But they would have to play really well after everybody gets back for an extention to be warranted.

have seen this before. choi, jerome walton.... it's a legit question. not trying to knock the kid. The Marlins are really the only team that has allowed Choi to play regularly, and when given that opportunity, he produced. Then they traded him to the Dodgers who let him rot on the bench. perhaps i'm wrong, but didn't a bunch of teams have a chance to claim choi off waivers recently?? I believe the Red Sox have him stashed at AAA now. Doesn't change the fact that when give a chance to actually play regularly, he played well. if the guy could produce, he wouldn't be stashed in AAA. :roll: Whatever you say. I guess the fact that he actually has produced when given the chance to play regularly doesn't mean anything. No one is saying he's a star player. However, there are some AL teams that could use him as a DH, and probably a handful of teams around the majors that could use him at first base. He just happens to be in an organization that has productive players at 1B and DH already. Didn't he play regularly with the Cubs before he got his concussion? I don't remember him doing anything for us. Choi is just as bad, if not worse, as Jacque is against left handed pitchers. I think it's unanimous on this board that Jacque should have a platoon partner. So why should Choi get the chance to play when he can't hit lefties? He doesn't deserve it.

It's now up to 33 votes for Freddy Bynum and I think he voted for himself each time. You have to feel sorry for Rich Hill because he only has 44 votes. Since over 4000 people have voted that means that he is considered to be on par with Bynum. Now I know Hill hasn't been that good, but he's not Bynum bad.

How hard is it to realize that you can't have both defense and offense in a catcher? Most of the time, you have to pick one or the other. Barrent is a hitting catcher and Miller is a defensive catcher. Like carniby said, Miller's numbers will drop off SIGNIFICANTLY. Just wait until the end of the year and Miller's final numbers won't be anywhere near what his numbers are at right now. Barrett is the superior overall catcher and like a couple other people have said, he isn't the problem. You can talk about the pitch calling, but does Barrett make Glendon Rusch throw batting practice to the opposing team every time he takes the mound? No. The pitchers have to make the right pitches. If Barrett calls a pitch, the pitcher throws it correctly, and it gets hit for a homerun, then that's Barrett's fault. Is it Barrett's fault that our pitchers have walked the most batters in the National League and are second only to Baltimore in all MLB? No. Let's look at the offense. It doesn't matter how good Barrett's pitchcalling is when the offense scores 11 runs in 10 games and gets shutout 4 times in 6 games. And don't even try the argument that Barrett wasn't hitting either because he is only responsible for 1 out of every 9 at bats. Everybody knows Barrett isn't the best defensive catcher. Everybody has faults. There is no such thing as the perfect player. The problems with this team run far deeper than Barrett.

As I recall, Cedeno wasn't known for his bat in the minors.

This I can agree with. Most. Annoying. Announcers. Ever. Good guys 3, bad guys 0. Who does that? Thats just stupid. EDIT: WHenever Hawk says something ridiculously stupid, DJ somehow backs him up with some ludicrous explanation, DJ usually gives Hawk verbal fellatio. Btw, they don't know what OBP is. THEY SERIOUSLY DONT. I can't stand the "He gone" line that one of them always says. Like bc2k said, I watch to stay informed. I have MLB.TV so if I'm bored the first thing I do is look if a game is on. If the Sox game happens to be the best game being played at that time then I'll watch it. But only then. And when they play the Cubs.

I would say the Cubs have to play at least .550 ball when everybody comes for me to be okay with an extention. Playing .500 isn't good enough.

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.