17 Seconds

is huet hurt or something? if not, that's really dumb. not one of those goals was his fault.

the new del negro face. that was awesome

lol you might want to not leave a guy wide open over there with a 3 point lead

how many open nets does ladd plan on whiffing on this game?

glad i was looking forward to this garbage all day

good game boys

nice dive

First off, you know the NL Central was a really really good division last year, right? Also, the reason why those guys (Braun, Wright, etc) hit there is because they've proven they're successful at it. Soriano has not. In fact, Soriano has shown time and time again that he significantly worse while batting in the middle of the order.... and this is backed up with huge sample sizes and full seasons. I don't know why you ignore it. Why else was was he significantly worse in those 2 seasons with Texas? The 2 years before that and the 3 years after that he was basically the same hitter....but the 2 years with Texas sandwhiched in between, he was a completely different hitter. If it's not because he was in the middle of the order and not leading off, then what was it? A 2 year slump? You have a point with Lou being stupid about the late inning defensive replacement stuff, but that's a completely different argument. He hits him leadoff because that is where he performs the best. Isn't that what you want a manager to do? Make the players perform the best? Even though it didn't last long and it was probably pointless since Lou didn't give it a real shot, at least he's tried to move him out of the leadoff spot... which shows it's not just him coddling him. He wants him to hit... and he hits when he's batting leadoff. Would you really be more happy batting him 3rd even if it means losing like 70 OPS points? I wouldn't. Also the media/scout stuff is a big time copout/excuse and it's hurting your argument anyways. You keeo harping on it and it makes it sound like you can't defend your arugment well enough on your own. It's no surprise that either of those groups are saying it anyways. The media is the media (c'mon, are we really even talking about the media?) and scouts are all old fashioned guys who think anything SABR related is pure evil. Of course they're saying this stuff. Too bad it's 2009. Scouts should stick to what they do...scouting and evaluating talent. Since when are they in charge of things like managing players and in game strategies anyways? Shouldn't they be in coaching if they want to do that?

In the context it was raised...yes. Soriano leading off is an issue because so many bring it up all the time. I hear it constantly in the media & by analysts...so yes. Finishing first in runs is here nor there as you are not playing your watered down division in the playoffs. Let's flip it around. The Cubs have been dead last in runs scored the last two years in the playoffs. How's that? I still don't understand how the media bringing it up constantly means it's actually a problem. Like I said, if the media is harping about something, there's a good chance it's [expletive]. It's the media. That'swhat they do. The same media that keeps talking about Aaron Miles leading off. As for "analysts" (I'm assuming you're talking about jokers like Steve Phillips, Buster Olney, etc.)..... it's not a surprise some of those guys say that. Most of them are old guys and old-fashioned baseball guys. They still think things like that are important, when really they're not. This is 2009. It's okay to accept the fact that things like leadoff aren't really important. I don't know why you refuse to accept it when it's been explained/proven over and over. You have to open your mind and accept it. Stop being so stubborn. As for the playoffs.... like I said.... unless the rules are different in the playoffs, I don't see your point. So they were a powerhouse offense in the regular season against EVERYBODY, but as soon as the playoffs start, their fatal flaw of Soriano leading off is exposed? That's really what you want to argue? If nobody in your lineup hits, you aren't going to score runs, period. Nobody hit. I don't know why you're acting like we would have scored runs if we had a leadoff hitter. Would a leadoff hitter have made everyone else in the lineup rake for some reason?

Do you really think you should be using baseball "analysts" and the media to back your argument? I think that would be a better backing argument for someone arguing the opposite. Either way, first in the NL in runs last year with Soriano leading off. Unless the rules change in the playoffs, I don't think this should even be an issue anymore. Last year should have squashed that.

Well the Giants are in on him

When they are statues with gloves in left and make 20+ million, yes. Are we talking about Manny or Dunn here? Manny.

When they are statues with gloves in left and make 20+ million, yes. Thank you

Did I say that? I'm saying I wouldn't want to pay 3/75 or 4/100 for a .900 OPS corner outfielder was terrible defense. With that money you're paying for 1.050 OPS Manny and I don't know if you're going to get that from him once he gets paid.

How do you miss that badly on a first overall pick?

Manny >>>>>>>>>>> Dunn, and I like Dunn yeah, you can definitely go get dunn instead of manny if you want, but signing a lesser player is hardly giving manny the finger. Preach it. People need to realize just how good Manny is and has been. The team picture of the most dangerous hitters of the last twenty years unquestionably includes him. If he gets paid how do they know he's not going to turn back into the .900 OPS hitter he was for the 1 and 2/3 seasons he was in Boston when he stopped caring? Plus he's 36. If he gets like a 3 year deal or the 4 year deal he's holding out for, that's probably the last significant (to him) contract he'll get for his career, so what is going to keep Manny from being Manny as soon as he gets paid?

While I agree the odds of Hill finding his control in time for the regular season are extremely slim, it's not THAT unrealistic, considering Hill has already done it once in his career. Hill walked 36 in 29.1 innings in A ball in 2003, then 72 in 109.1 innings in 2004. Then in 2005 he suddenly found his control and carried it through 2007. Now he's lost it again. It's not like he's always had good control and has suddenly fallen apart. He had terrible control for his entire college/pro career until 2005 when he found it, and now it's gone away again. That makes it highly unlikely he siddenly finds it in time to allow us to put him on the opening day roster, but it's not out of the question.

I don't get this reference Hendrys Untouchables. Hes the last of his kind. People on the internet overvaluing Fuld = Hendry making him untouchable? I don't get it. Was there ever anything about Hendry not wanting to trade Fuld?

As a pitcher or a hitter? Hamilton was always good.....he just had issues. Matt Bush flat out sucks and was drafted way too high to begin with.

I feel this should be posted again. What is new there? I think everybody understands they were out of options and had to be traded.

Well I think in the long run, what we got for DeRosa will end up looking a little better then it does right now. I know alot of scouts are pretty high on Archer, but he still has a long way to go. I guess I don't understand it being a salary dump, when were only saving 3.3m. Especialy when the payroll was suppose to be between 140-145m, and is only at 137m right now. If we keep DeRosa our payroll would still only be at 140m right now. But who knows maybe Hendry is still gonna make another move. Did we even get a top 15 prospect in the Indians organization? The best prospexct in the deal is a 25 year old reliever. Unless Hendry and the FO think that this is an outstanding package that they couldn't pass up, I don't see how it can be qualified as anything other than a salary dump. Teams that are in "all out win mode" don't just trade away valuable and proven players like that so they can give a few more at-bats to a guy like Fontenot. I could maybe see if if we had some stud Evan Longoria type guy, but Fontenot isn't that (not bashing Fontenot). I think it was a combination of a salary dump to prepare for Bradley and possibly Peavy, and that Hendry thought they could get by without him.... which I think is a mistake. I think he was too focused on "getting more left handed" instead of just keeping/getting the best players. If Bradley stays healthy then the loss of DeRosa shouldn't hurt much, but the odds are heavily against that.

I know I'm late, but... How are you gonna lose to Wisconsin? Come on...

It all depends on how Ricketts feels about Lou I guess. I know the current guys incharge think very highly of Lou. One question I have is has Lou ever been fired? Most managers haven't been. Nobody ever thought Torre wouldn't be welcome back either and he was basically run out of town (despite the BS one year offer that was only made to save face). Sometimes you just have to make changes. Like I said though, it's not a matter of whether or not they think highly of him. Of course they do, and I doubt they'd blame him if they choked 3 straight years. I'm just saying at that point it would probably be time for a change. When you completely are overwhelmed by the stage andget swept once, you can write it off as a lot of things. When it happens twice, you start making character changes in the clubhouse (Wood, DeRosa, Bradley). If it happens 3 times in a row, you have to get drastic and completely change the attitude in the clubhouse. That would start with changing managers....whether Lou is to blame or not. Now that I think about it though.... if the Cubs make the playoffs and choke again this year, I bet Lou would retire.

I'm not so sure. If the Cubs make the playoffs again and totally freeze up and get swept agin, I could see them wanting to shake things up and fire Lou... even if he might not deserve. At that point you can no longer just make some roster moves and hope everything will be okay in Octboer. You'd have to have a major change in the clubhouse. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, because I don't think Lou has anything to do with the choking.

The Cubs payroll is currently 137.2m, take away Miles 2.2m and keep DeRosa and our payroll is 140.5m. I'm starting to think getting rid of DeRosa had more to do with getting Fontenot regular AB's then anything. Because I don't think the 3.3m saved is really the issue. I think they like Fontenot bat alot, and feel he can put up simliar numbers to DeRosa, but from the LH side of the plate. Now I wouldn't have made the move, because I'm worried about the outfield depth. But I can understand the Cubs liking Fontenot and wanting to give him regular AB's. We will just have to wait and see how these moves work out next year. I have a feeling they will work out alot better then some think. I don't know. Fontenot got a nice chunk of PAs last season (284) and you'd figure that since they just added a right fielder who is a virtual lock to miss time (whether Hendry wants to admit it or not) he figured to get a lot this year even if DeRosa was still on the team. Either way, you can never have too many good hitters, especially when you've got more than one injury prone starters. For a team that's admittedly in "all out win mode", I don't think they woud trade away a good hitter just to get another guy at-bats when the one they're trading away is pretty much a sure thing to produce and can play multiple positions. For those reasons 9not to mention the less than stellar package Hendry got back), I think it was 100% a salary dump. I probably would have been indifferent on the offseason had they kept DeRosa. I just don't see how you can plan to sign Bradley and then get rid of your number 1 insurance policy. That's really bad planning to me. Every other option for when Bradley goes down seems pretty ugly. Johnson against RHP, Fukudome against LHP, Gathright Hoffpauir, Miles.... all those guys look pretty gross. I've heard the argument that Jim could go out and get somebody if Bradley goes down.....but unless he goes down with a significant injury where you know he'll be out for months, I don't see Jim trading for anybody good to fill in... not if it's only for a few weeks and we have limited trading pieces as it is.