SoonerCubFan

He had one great season with Oscar Acosta, who seemed to get a lot out of a lot of guys.

As for manager, how about someone out of the Cardinal's bench, like Dave Duncan or Jose Oquendo. They seem to get a lot of mileage out of mediocre guys in the middle IF and pitching staff, while the current Cubs regime turn 5 tool and golden arm talent into floundering scapegoats.

First off - it's moron not moran. Second, while I like the idea of a Murton/Jones platoon for as long as Jones is around for many reasons, having Murton as a full-time OF is definitely part of the overall problem. Sub-.800 OPS corner OFs are not helpful, OBP be-darned. Do you realize how little difference there is between a .363 and .347 OBP? While Soriano may have trouble staying around .350 OBP, I'd take that extra 200 SLUG% points for on less time on base per 60 PAs anyday, aslong as the Trib will suck up the salary without shortchanging elsewhere. That said, the real answer is still Miguel Cabrera, if Hendry wants to truly salvage anything out of 2006, whether they make a playoff run or not.

If Neifi was putting up Cedeno's numbers they'd represent a career year. Neifi put up the same line last year with much better defense, actually. Yes, the lines project about the same overall. But, along with the afore-mentioned room for improvement, Cedeno actually plays a better game offensively in terms of advancing runners, taking pitches, etc. None of which are too helpful with the current feeble lineup, but could still be beneficial with a better team. Maybe we could call in Jim Frey to give Ronny the Sandberg talk?? As for D, I have to disagree. Yes, Ronny makes some poor throws, but his range is terrific and probably gets more outs over other SS's than he gives away with errors, and will easily improve. He's got Gold Glove ability once he corrects his throwing.

Yes. Basically, Hendry is delaying the decision of who to take off of the 40man that was created when he added Womak until Prior is ready to come back. I'm hoping he's working on a trade or two. As bad as the team is that Hendry has assembled, he's generally been pretty good at making trades (as long as the trading partner isn't Florida...) Well, IMO the only trade that can salvage this season would involve a certain Florida player.

To make it simple, he should get the standard suspension for charging the mound, where punches/helmets are always thrown - no more, no less. I suspect that's pretty much where it will end up.

I could never get that far ahead of myself. With a healthy team coming out of this year. Prior, Wood, Miller, D Lee, Pagan. I see good things. Hendry makes some move to plug holes he thinks he can address and the Cubs'll be back at it. You're counting on Prior and Wood next year?? :shock: Not to mention the fact that next year's free agent class is far from spectacular...wait till the year after next seems completely reasonable...hell...somebody just posted that our TEAM obp is under .300...has that ever happened for a team to finish with an OBP under .300 for the year? It has happened 24 times since 1961 in the National League........ 1965 New York 0.277 1968 New York 0.281 1963 Houston 0.283 1972 San Diego 0.283 1963 New York 0.285 1969 San Diego 0.285 1964 Houston 0.285 1967 New York 0.288 1968 Los Angeles 0.289 1976 Washington 0.291 1971 San Diego 0.293 1968 Philadelphia 0.294 1964 New York 0.296 1973 San Diego 0.296 1963 CUBS 0.297 1967 Cincinnati 0.297 1988 Atlanta 0.298 1966 St. Louis 0.298 1989 Atlanta 0.298 1968 St. Louis 0.298 1968 CUBS 0.298 1971 Philadelphia 0.298 1968 Houston 0.298 1985 San Fancisco 0.299 It's only happened twice since '86, and not at all since 1990. 24 occurances out of 548 team seasons is 4.38%. Well, two of those teams went on to win the World Series the following year, one was in the World Series the same year they made this list, and one went on to win 14 straight divisional titles just two yaers after making this list.

Personally, Ozzie is my favorite manager. He speaks the truth, is extremely focused on every moment of the game, and gets great results by optimizing the situations for his players. He does exactly what many are clamoring for here - backs his players when deserved and lashes them when deserved. Heck, he's a better advocate of what ails the friggin' Cubs then anyone on our side of the ledger. He's exactly the type of manager I was hoping for at this point in the Baylor fiasco.

Our offense is below average, but it isn't as bad as it is right now either. Trust me, we are just in a bad slump. I've seen worse. I remember a POST-Nomar Cubs series in 2004 when we scored just 2 runs (all in one inning) in a three game series against the Brewers. This feast or famine is not new to the Cubs. Apparently when you take away the home runs and add a bunch of speed to the Cubs old feast or famine offense...you just get the famine part. Of course, if we're really trying to assess the issue honestly, the changes from last years' Cubs team and this one are few and, except for Pierre vs. Patterson in CF, should have been able to match the power very well. After all, the team is/was the same at C, 1B, 2B, 3B and Cedeno/Murton/Jones should match up well with Perez/Hollandsworth/Dubois/Burnitz in terms of power while adding the speed element. The problem is that Pierre has not helped at leadoff at all while losing some occasional pop, and the same players who had the power production last year are not matching what they did.

run support and the bullpen blowing leads are the two reasons a pitcher with a 3.20 ERA doesn't have more than 14 wins. Yeah, actually, I've always blamed Wood in part for his low win totals. No question about it, this guy has gotten screwed more than his fair share by the bullpen, but he's pretty inconsistent. Wood will have a great game, a good game and crappy game and pretty much alternate the whole season. He's so dominating when he is on that his total ERA remains good, but the inconsistentcy doesn't give him or the team as many opportunites to win the game. When he is off, you can pretty much mark down as a loss. Inconsistency has been a recent problem but when healthy he was actually quite consistent. I tracked this pretty closely back in 2001-2003. For example, in 2003 Wood was one of the MOST consistent starters in MLB, having around 22-23 quality starts, which was topped by only a couple of other starters. I looked at every starter with 15+ wins that year, and they averaged almost 1 win/quality start. Guys like David Wells had MORE wins the quality starts. The bullpen was exactly the main reason then. Wood had 7 games with blown leads in the 8th inning or later. All of the 15+ win guys had AT MOST just TWO blown leads. Matt Morris, for instance, had ZERO that same year. By all rights, Wood should have won 19+ games in 2003, and over 15 in 2001-2002. The question now is whether he can return to 2001-2003 form, and stay healthy from here on.

Why's that? I thought they were some of the most articulate baseball-loving folks to ever grace the booth, and was glad the Cubbies cooperated by having a long 1/2 of an inning. I thoroughly enjoyed their time in the booth, if we have to have anyone there. Heck, I wouldn't mind the grandson take over as play-by-play announcer over some of our more recent (not Len) guys.

Good thread, all positive. Some additional thoughts/comments: 1. Don't forget Wade Miller in this equation, and Carlos Marmol may be a factor by next spring. May have 8-9 very good to outstanding options. All in all, we definitely should have plenty of top notch trade chips and still have a surplus should all return to health. 2. I'd love to see the Cubs give Greg any fair amount to continue to pitch as long as he wants in a Cubs uniform. All the reasons I wanted us to get him in 2004 (leadership/presence, solid innings eater, winner) I think are as valid as ever or moreso, and it would be great to see him make a run at #3 in all time wins (374+).

By the same token, the people who played instead of them(Karros, Hollandsworth, Harris, etc.) haven't done much either. No one ever guaranteed the younger players were guaranteed studs, they only argued they were as good or better than the players they were benched for. In actuality, these are really about the only potential issues in the Baker era, and they are all weak in comparison with the young players who have been given more plenty of opportunity in recent years. The Karros/Choi platoon was fine at that stage in their careers and was working well until Choi bounced his head off the Wrigley turf. The Dubois/Hollandsworth issue isn't even worth a debate IMO one way or the other. OTOH, Lenny Harris ever starting in the field over ANYONE, young or old, good or not, is a point that must be conceded. If this is the sum of arguments attemtping to brand Baker as pro-geezer, it is not very convincing.

I guess the real test will be when we do start getting Wood and Prior back - does anyone think Dusty will start Rusch over Marshall??

Choi was getting most of the PT in early 2003 prior to his concussion, over Karros for example. He simply didn't perform in his opportunity and still hasn't post-trade. Hill was actually never a factor during his one common year with Baker, spending the season in the minors, so he's not a godd example on either side. He had plenty of opportunity in ST that year though, and didn't deserve to play ahead of Grudz in any event. Since going to Pittsburgh, they've given him even less chances than the Cubs despite not being competitive. As for late 2005, I don't know what more could have been done. Cedeno was playing a lot prior to his season-ending injury. As soon as the Cubs dropped out contention Lawton was dealt and Murton got plenty of ABs in the best possible scenario for him to develop properly. Not one other young player was "blocked" from PT last year, unless one wants to suggest DuBois, who was actually getting a comparable number of ABs to Hollandsworth prior to his trade. Mitre, Hill, Koronka, etc. got a lot of starts between them. Wuertz, Wellemeyer, Van Buren, Bartosh all got a lot of PT when on the roster, even to the team's detriment.

IMO, the constant clamor about Baker and vets over kids is and always has been inaccurate. He never had much young talent come up in SF (from the mid-90s to early 00s the only Giants prospect in the BA Top 50 was Jerome Williams), and when he did (Aurilia, Mueller, Clayton, Benard, etc.) they played. Rod Beck was a closer at age 24 in Baker's first year in SF. He fostered lesser talent guys like Ortiz, Estes, Reuter, etc. into productive SP's. The Cubs' young talent has always gotten PT under Baker. Patterson was a regular from Day 1, Choi and Hill had their shots, Zambrano and Prior have been fixtures in the rotation when healthy, he gives each young bullpen arms plenty (probably too much) of rope. Murton and Cedeno have played regularly since arriving, with wise usage to put them in the best situations for them to succeed early. Marshall appears to be developing quite properly under Baker. In short, I have no problem with Dusty's willingness to use TALENTED young players. The bigger issue remains organizational in getting ML-ready talent developed in the first place, as well as planning the transition.

it led to one run. the home runs accounted for four. your point is...? Actually, I saw it lead to two. And the Cubs hit 3 HRs and still lost. It's still a combination of things, all of which are important on a play-by-play basis.

Absolutely. At Cincy, most games will be dominated by the HR. Not a big surprise today, although Freel's speed actually accounted for TWO runs today (1st and 8th). And yes, there will be days when the wind is blowing in at Wrigley where team speed will play a huge factor, much as it did in setting up the Cubs' big innings Monday. And there will be days when a starter dominates the entire game all on his own (I can't wait for that to start happening). It's all important, even on a play-by-play basis.

Fascinating discussion. After nearly 4 decades of watching the Cubs eschew several of these items and focus more on power with occasional emphasis on quality pitching, I must say it is refreshing to see the more balanced team in terms of power AND speed this team has, along with a view toward more OBP at the top and better team D. I especially like the shift away from high K batters. As for this list I'd say that with the volatile nature of Wrigley playing conditions, the list is similarly volatile. Previous Cub teams were never built offensively to deal with all types of conditions. Of course, OBP will always be key no matter what conditions or where the games are played, but yesterday's game should have been a prime example of how speed CONTRIBUTES to not making outs, and is not quantifiable by stats. It will be interesting to see if this team can indeed still provide some runs on days when the HR is not a viable option. Oh, and I'd personally break the quality pitching into starting vs bullpen, and place a quality bullpen at the very top of my ranking of importance during the regular season, and quality starting at the top in the playoffs. If speed contributes to not making outs, it will be reflected in higher batting averages and OBP. Not making outs is a very measureable thing. Not always. If the other team fails to turn a DP, or a runner gets thrown out at the plate on a hit (as happened far too often with recent teams), those are not measured by BA or OBP. If a runner advances an extra base and is able to convert an ensuing fly out into a run instead of staying put at 2B - not quantifiable. If speed contributes to hurrying a play into an error, no out is made but OBP and BA go down. Again, of course being on base comes first, but finally having the ability to use speed as a tool is a welcome addition.

I'd be stunned if Murton is a mere league average hitter and anywhere close to your "projection". I'll venture to say he ends up over 120, although I'd also suggest Edmonds could likely be back over 150 as well.

Fascinating discussion. After nearly 4 decades of watching the Cubs eschew several of these items and focus more on power with occasional emphasis on quality pitching, I must say it is refreshing to see the more balanced team in terms of power AND speed this team has, along with a view toward more OBP at the top and better team D. I especially like the shift away from high K batters. As for this list I'd say that with the volatile nature of Wrigley playing conditions, the list is similarly volatile. Previous Cub teams were never built offensively to deal with all types of conditions. Of course, OBP will always be key no matter what conditions or where the games are played, but yesterday's game should have been a prime example of how speed CONTRIBUTES to not making outs, and is not quantifiable by stats. It will be interesting to see if this team can indeed still provide some runs on days when the HR is not a viable option. Oh, and I'd personally break the quality pitching into starting vs bullpen, and place a quality bullpen at the very top of my ranking of importance during the regular season, and quality starting at the top in the playoffs.

CubsWin wrote: But that's not what I read into the Rothschild comments, although I could be a bit overcritical at this point with the whole situation. Certainly at this point that's all that can be done, assuming it really is a new problem. However, it did seem that Prior was a bit off mechanically in 2005 (didn't he say so himself at one point?) from his 2003 form, and I still maintain that such known mechanical tweaks should always be looked at by the coaches and players at the end of the season and worked on all offseason so that they all hit the ground running in ST. Waiting to deal with issues until ST begs for problems that could be avoided.

What I don't get about all of this is waiting until the middle of ST to even contemplate this stuff. Seems to me that if they could see the need to adjust, you start it in the offseason so you have time to ingrain the changes. Doing it now is absurd. Another goofy approach is to let Prior, or any pitcher not coming off surgery with the requisite rest involved, to go from the end of the season until ST even throw at all. Perhaps THAT is why these guys break down - not enough mound work in the winter. Heck, it seems that a long toss program all winter would do wonders for arm strength and conditioning.

First off, for those who haven't recognized it yet, the SI List is simply in alphabetical (certainly not valuable) order. Next: The money may come off the books, but I'd be very surprised to see Wood leave via FA. And, it wouldn't be a total shock to see Maddux have a revival type year where someone will employ him for a couple more years. That said, I'd most like to see us focus first on getting the core of the team (Lee, Ramirez, Prior, Zambrano and yes, IMO, Pierre) locked up for the next 3+ years with the spare $, then indeed go hard after a complimentary starter. St. Louis has a propensity to lock up guys like Mulder before letting them go FA, so I don't expect him to be available. But, if they're gearing up for Buehrle, we may exchange cities with Mulder, but it may be the Sox who ante up.

Back to the original question: I'd personally answer it that the bullpen has a much bigger impact on the game, individually and especially over the course of a season, than a corner OF. Nothing is as reassuring as a solid pen, and nothing is as deflating as blown leads late. I'm not enamored with the Jones deal in context of what it does beyond 2006, but the Cubs can win many more games with a strong pen. That is one area I have no qualms about spending early offseason $.