SoonerCubFan

Sometimes the Dusty bashing gets a bit overblown. Hendry forces his hand by getting a mediocre hitting, Gold Glove SS and Dusty responds by keeping a young guy playing by switching positions in a lost season, and even then he gets second guessed? And, IMO a Major League player should have no problem with this switch and especially going back to his previous position after just a couple of weeks. I can't believe he's not taking plenty of infield practice at both positions.

Agreed! I can't really remember a SS or 2nd basemen that has made so many poor choice decisions as Cedeno has. I hope people aren't talking about the throw home. That was the right move, he had Burrell by several steps, the throw was just not a good one. Isolated incidents should never be used as an argument, and certainly wasn't what I had in mind. It's after dozens of such, both offensively and defensively that this one is just another example. I was all behind him early this year, and am willing to let young players evolve, but IMO players who have a tendency for boneheadedness and make physical errors under pressure have a lower chance of evolving than others. I am quite skeptical at this point.

Good argument, but to me it's not really even these numbers, it's that he's pulled some of the most boneheaded plays I've ever seen at the MLB level. And that's saying something being a Cub fan for over 35 years. As most said by others, I could live with him at SS and hitting 8th in an otherwise solid lineup, but he AND Izturis both should be in that slot - we can't live with both of them and a weak OF in 2007.

Agree on both, especially the Monday cop out, and add another Sosa catch in 2001 to the list. On a night when he hit 2 HRs including a slam, he made an even better diving catch in short right center off the Cards' flash Stubby Clapp with the bases loaded to preserve a win when the Cubs were in the thick of the race. I also saw 2 other great catches in games at old Busch Stadium. One was in the early 1980s by Mel Hall very similar to the Mays catch off of Vic Wertz. But the best of all was by Bob Dernier in June 1984 off a drive in deep right center by Darrell Porter in a scoreless game against Andujar (that later saw Leon Durham steal home). It was the Hollandsworth catch times 10 - the greatest single play I ever saw in person. We were hig up near the LF foul pole and there was no way it seemed humanly possible to run that ball down, let alone crash headlong into the wall a split second later. Amazing play in an amazing season.

Agree 100% all the way around. Actually, I liked what I saw from Juan his first time out, and this (along with his solid MiLB stats) only solidifies my opinion of him as a potential keeper.

Several posts in, but this is exactly what I see the case being. Extremely well done all the way around. AND ... wasn't it sweet to see the Cubs get under the Astros' skin for a change?? After the 2004 non-beaning flop by Berkman and the subsequent turnaround to that season, it was nice seeing Clemens lose his cool.

I do not agree with these statements. I would suggest that the combination of all of them in the same lineup is pretty bad, but any two of them (excluding Neifi, who should only see limited PT, as he has lately) in a better balanced lineup would be fine. For instance, Pierre has been excellent the last 2.5 months with an OBP well over .350 and 25 EBHs, yet has only scored 32 runs in 67 games, due to a variety of factors. Unfortunately things stack up such that the first 4 are likely starters next year. If we could find a way to upgrade 2 of these positions offensively (including Pierre simply maintaing his current and career paces), and see a return of DLee to at least .900 OPS, the Cubs could get back to at least the middle of the pack or better next year in runs scored. A big IF at this point, but just a couple of smart moves and good health away. You say you do not agree, but then you backup the statements with support. Of course it's the fact that all of them are here that is the problem. But we can't just pretend they aren't all here, or won't all be here next year. Just about any combination of two of those guys is tolerable in the lineup if other spots improve dramatically. The problem is improvement in other spots in unlikely to happen. Hendry still ignores OBP, and the lack of walks, which has been a huge problem for years now, is going to remain a problem. Nope. I disagree with statements that "they're ALL pretty bad" and that Pierre and Izturis (specifically) are "huge liabilities". These statements I do not support, I merely put things in a context I do support.

I do not agree with these statements. I would suggest that the combination of all of them in the same lineup is pretty bad, but any two of them (excluding Neifi, who should only see limited PT, as he has lately) in a better balanced lineup would be fine. For instance, Pierre has been excellent the last 2.5 months with an OBP well over .350 and 25 EBHs, yet has only scored 32 runs in 67 games, due to a variety of factors. Unfortunately things stack up such that the first 4 are likely starters next year. If we could find a way to upgrade 2 of these positions offensively (including Pierre simply maintaing his current and career paces), and see a return of DLee to at least .900 OPS, the Cubs could get back to at least the middle of the pack or better next year in runs scored. A big IF at this point, but just a couple of smart moves and good health away.

It's funny how these issues get brought up the first time things look bad. Prior had us within 5 outs of the promised land just 2 years after the 2001 Draft, and looked all the world like a sure-fire HOFer in bloom. At 25, he may still get us and himself to those levels. I don't regret having taken him, it just hasn''t gone well the last 2.5 seasons. Jehrico, you are the first to mention what the real choice was for the Cubs in 2001 - Prior vs. Teixeira. I recall a lot of fun banter on another board around draft day, knowing we'd get one or the other. Choosing any of the 3 has looked good for each them at different times the last 5 years. I hope all 3 reach their full potential with their respective teams over a long career.

Let's put it this way - I think all of us learned who was to cover 2B on that play back in Little League. Cedeno has looked lost and timid lately, and the excuse about learning a new position doesn't hack it with me, this is very basic stuff any professional middle infielder should know by instinct. agreed. cut him. agreed, you hate players that play well. Why even say that? No one was saying anything close to "we should get rid of Cedeno because he screwed up that play". Actually, what I was getting at is that his continuing blunders are being excused far too easily by the OJT training angle. He did play 2B in the minors, how could a guy in Pony League, much less MLB, not know what base to cover, not know how to make a pivot on a DP, etc. by now?? This is as much or more of an indictment of the "coaching" being done at the lower levels as it is on Ronny, but this stuff is very basic.

Actually, that also would be a pretty decent lineup. From a very surface review, it seems to me that the 3-5 or 3-6 slots filled with high OPS guys is the most common denominator in high output offenses, and this is another way to get it. This would actually slot our weaker OF into useful slots in the lineup, optimizing what they each could provide, and gets Izturis down where he belongs. I like any number of these suggested moves way better than what we'll probably see happen.

That's a great lineup, but it would most likely preclude us signing Schmidt or Zito. Even taking away Maddux and Wood ($20m total, I think), you add CLee at something like $13m, Loretta's going to get $4m MINIMUM, Izturis gets $4.15m, Ramirez likely will get a boost, then factor in the raises Z, Prior and some of the young'uns will get, and you're already $7-$10m OVER this years' budget. The Cubs absolutely HAVE to play 2 or 3 of Murton/Cedeno/Theriot/Fontenot in order to afford ANY free agents. And that means they have to deal Izturis. Hendry really painted himself into a corner with that trade. I think $7-10M is about right, and I again opine that it's pretty minor and actually gets us right around where the budget was projected to be this year (I think Hendry actually had more to play with than he used). Certainly the Trib could and should up the ante by at least $20M to pull in Schmidt or Zito and maybe a #5 type starter who throws some innings and/or a good bench player or two.

Pretty close to the way I see it, and I love the idea of Loretta at 2B. However, I'd put it as Jones/Murton in RF (or LF), and consider Barrett (or Murton on his playing days) at #2, opening up the #5 slot for a bigger bat (preferably Sheffield but more likely CLee). I just don't see enough power in the lineup shown, we need another high SLG guy IMO. Pie, like the way Patterson SHOULD have been, is slotted perfectly at #7, where he can do some occasional damage until he's ready for a more prominent role. I'd love to see this lineup: Loretta Barrett/Murton DLee Ramirez CLee (or Sheffield) Jones/Barrett Pie Izturis P Now THAT lineup has the elements - high OBP/OPS 1 thru 5 or 6, and occasional productivity at the bottom, plus some smart ballplayers with an excellent D at most positions, while not taking a whole lot more salary overall, offset by the loss of Maddux, Pierre and Wood's current salary. Get the Trib to up the overall budget enough to land Schmidt and/or Zito and we'd be back in the game.

Let's put it this way - I think all of us learned who was to cover 2B on that play back in Little League. Cedeno has looked lost and timid lately, and the excuse about learning a new position doesn't hack it with me, this is very basic stuff any professional middle infielder should know by instinct.

I'm not sure I totally buy this on a universal basis. It may be more projectable to future plans, but the potential extra bases that other baserunners could get from the higher SLUG could also be more important. In reality, it all comes down to whether those walks/hits form part of a team-wide rally or not. Let's just say that high OPS is good, period. Exactly. Now, when we're talking specifics, I'm afraid this will be exactly the case. That's why I keep thinking the best possible scenario we're likely to see is a Jones/Murton platoon, which woul dhave been nice this year but probably less so next, when Murton should be increasing his PT, not decreasing. Maybe they'll start out in a platoon and then either a mid-season trade or a Jones slide will get Murton a full time job.

I didn't read him to say that, he simply pointed out that it's easier to slot power in LF than the non-traditional positions. I think we're all on the same page on this, that we HAVE to add at least one or preferably two more high-OPS guys to the middle of the lineup. All of the ideas listed above would be quite welcome, but in reality it seems quite apparent that Hendry expects Izturis at SS and Jones in RF and probably Pierre in CF and Cedeno at 2B. You and I may not like it a bit, but I'd be shocked if this isn't the case come Mesa time. With these parameters, what have we got left? LF is it, and a full year of Murton AND all of these other guys in the lineup isn't going to cut it any more than it did this year. As I suggested in a different thread, getting a big bat in LF and platooning Murton and Jones could actually improve production at both corner OF spots. This seems the best we're gonna get.

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season? Yep Sounds good. We'll disagree, in that case. I can understand you'd want to "lock in" production but personally I'd take the gamble. Again, more often than not the 300/.350 guy will be more productive. I've been reading though the thread you posted - good stuff. I agree w/you cfict. Given a choice between a CAREER .300/.350 guy and a CAREER .280/350 guy, I go with the .300/.350. But I think overall, its important to consider their CAREER #'s, and I doubt that two players could be as evenly matched in such a comparison. For instance, think of a SEASON with two guys battng .300/.350 and .280/.350. With JUST the view of those #'s, and not considering career #'s, I'm going with the .280/.350 guy. He will be less succeptable to getting on base due to errors, intentional walks, etc, and more likely to be on base for you. this is a great discussion, it extended my lunch break by 40 minutes. we need more of these :D This whole sub-thread is lacking a more important element - extra base hit ability (i.e., SLUG). If either SLUGs at a .600 clip and the other at a .400 clip, gimme the first guy, even if he's at .250/.300. As for the rest of the discussion, the difference between a .280/.350 guy and a .300/.350 is so miniscule (1 extra non-hit time on base per 50 PAs), assuming all else is equal, that I'd take the .300 hitter as well, thinking he may get a hit w/RISP that the other guy won't.

??? After the year in the pen, Morris came back to win 22 and then 17 games while increasing his Ks and holding steady on WHIP. The Cubs should have done the same with Kerry in 2000, and definitely should have from day 1 this year.

I had this exact same conversation a few weeks ago when Kerry went back on the DL and I was pitching strongly for this very scenario (i.e., Wood in the pen). My argument then and now is based on the way he threw the ball in 2005 in relief. I think Kerry has a tendency to hold back his stuff as a starter to try to pace himself. Even with the known shoulder problems in 2005, he went from throwing in the low 90s to hitting 100+ on the gun, and his breaking stuff had a lot more wickedness. That suggested to me that his arm was responding quite favorably to that type of use. He had holds in 4 outings, each with a day off in between. The issue about command/first inning troubles I find also answerable by the pacing theory as a starter vs. challenging in relief. In relief, I saw him getting quickly ahead in the count because his fastball became almost unhittable. He would then wipe the hitter out quickly. If we do get him on board next year, of course he shouldn't be expected to be a closer immediately. He should be on a regular outing basis until he gets himslef built back up, then slowly phased into first a setup role. If all goes optimally, maybe he could be a force by midseason.

I was using CLee's career tendency as opposed to his 2006 numbers (currentl .892 OPS), which would be around that 150 mark. I could see Murton improving to around 800, but I could also see Lee jumping well over 900. At any rate, Lee or Soriano would be a much-needed addition to the middle of the lineup and would, again, give us a boost in RF as well if a Jones/Murton platoon is implemented. I agree completely with your Cabrera assessment, from what it might take to what a smart team would do if they did trade for him. Never gonna happen, but it would be sweet if it did.

CLee does still look like the most viable and Hendry-like move, although he has been more of a 825-850 OPS guy. That would still be an upgrade of 150+ OPS points in LF (and he could really explode at Wrigley) and enable a platoon in RF that could gain us another 100 OPS there as well. That said, I'd still love to see us go hard after Cabrera. Adding him to the lineup would mean a huge lift all over. Soriano would be about in the CLee category but probably more expensive. I wouldn't mind seeing JD Drew in RF either.

It doesn't have to be unfortunate or an either/or situation. If we can pull in that 900+ OPS corner OF, a Jones/Murton platoon could yield another 850+ OPS position for us, quite acceptable in the 6 or 7 hole, or even the 2 hole on Murton's playing days, depending on what we do at 2B.

So that's at least 45 innings in the league and Veal passed that tonight. He also just passed a third of the season in the league with today's start. He and Gallagher should finish eligible for two leagues. From a historical perspective, Juan Cruz was named the #2 BA Prospect in both the Midwest and Florida State Leagues in 2001, having thrown 96 innings at Lansing and just 44 at Daytona. I think Veal has the same potential rankings in him for 2006, as he has done better (119.2 IP, 2.10 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 133/66 K/BB ratio) than Cruz did at the time (140 IP, 3.27 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, 160/78 K/BB ratio).

IMO, the Cubs are really not that far off from being solid offensively, but the problem is going to be (again) having one too many middle IF bats in the lineup. One mandatory move will be to get our 3-4-5 slots solidifed in 900+ OPS form, which means Lee has to bouce back, Ramirez has to stay put, and we HAVE to add another big bat in one of the corner OF slots and/or at 2B. Look at the 1967-1971 Cubs, who had a terrible leadoff hitter and mediocre #2 hitter plus lousy bottom of the lineup, yet were always in the Top 3 in the NL in runs scored because they had great 3-4-5 hitters. In conclusion, Pierre, Izturis and Jones/Murton would be fine in the 1, 8 and 7 slots, respectively, if we could somehow manage to keep Ramirez, add BOTH a solid 2B bat and a high OPS corner OF. That team could be Top 5 NL offense team with very solid D to boot. But if we have all of them AND Cedeno we'll be a bat short, which is what it looks like it's going to be at best. If so, I'd still see a return to around the 7th to 9th place in runs.

I agree entirely with your first statement, but not with your second opinion. First off, what most folks fail to remember is that it was Dempster's stupid walks in the 9th inning of that fateful Mets game that preceded the Diaz HR off of Hawkins in 2004. Second, Hawkins was actually very good in 2004 in a role he was not signed for. He was not "much worse" than Dempster the entire time he was filling the role of closer. Dempster had a great month of September last year, but has been very shaky at times. He's either very good or very bad, and when he's bad, he loses games. His blown saves this year would have had in bad graces with more Cub fans this year if the team were over .500. I, too, was watching the end of this recent game and I would have been PO'd if Dusty had let Dempster continue the way things were going.