neely crenshaw

He has got to shore up the d though. It hurts you in so many ways that it can take away any offensive plus he is adding. I also worry his hitting will fade(tough position to keep it up all season, especially when we get into hot day games). These things should have been addressed by now, but for a team based on pitching and defense, poor catching can be a killer. His offense has far outdone what I expected though!

Do you honestly think thank Valuena is the full-time answer at 3rd? That's the problem. The Cubs don't have anyone who can step in and be that guy or even a decent platoon there. Stewart was signed to be that and he was awful last season, and will be again this season. Vitters isn't the answer either so I don't understand what the Cubs think they are going to do with that position. It's a glaring hole. Nobody knows if Barney will hit either and Littlebridge has shown he's can't even hold Aaron Mile's jockstrap. 2B certainly might be an issue as well. Castro will be fine but Rizzo semi worries me. Right now the infield just isn't hitting as a whole. You have 2 full seasons of Barney's offense. It might not be great but we should have an idea of what he will bring. He'll play great defense and hit toward the high 200's, with an obp around .300(hopefully a touch higher) Not earth shaking but not lillibridge either. If he can be left in the 8 spot, it's not a bad place. I would even think his obp would go up a bit as he would see a few walks to get to the pitcher. The problem we had last year is he had to hit much higher because so many spots were poor. I am not saying he's great, I am saying we have an idea of what to expect.

Enron Field (Minute Maid Park) is actually very nice. Tals Hill is stupid but the park is a great place to see a ballgame. I've never been to Arlington but I'll be willing to bet that it's better than Wrigley (no falling concrete or restricted view, better food, no exposed rust and everyone in the park has the ability to see instant replays. not saying any or better or worse, just saying there are good and bad with every place. Obviously newer is better but to crack on history of wrigley when there is bad history with a couple of his parks he played a majority of his career in is being a baby. I think most of us would take cab fare, and a hot dog to play a MLB game at the "terrible" confines at Wrigley. It comes off as spoiled.

I guess so, if you ignore Navarro. And the fact that Clevenger died on Sunday with his last swing did they ever give a further injury breakdown, I saw he went to the 60 day DL, which sounds like more than an oblique strain. Is it the dreaded upper body injury

There's different problems at different places. Can't remember the last time an opposing fan was beaten to death at wrigley. He makes millions to play a game. The field is great, the amenities are not so good. Perhaps he can battle through and play a few games without 5 star accommodations in the visiting clubhouse. I was just pointing out some fine history in berkman's own career. I'll take Tinkers to Evers to Chance over Tal's hill or the 8th wonder of the world any day.

Wonder if Berkman knows the fine history of the astros and rangers? or their wonderful old parks, arlington stadium or the astrodome? Perhaps he can expound on the hill in "Enron" field's centerfield that was sooo historical. Or the fact that it was named for a criminal business that was shut down because of fraud? Now that is history for ya! or i'll add- the story of the guy so out of shape, he blew out his leg catching a ball at first base and cost his team their season.

disappointing start for sure. After the spring he had, I expected a lot more especially in Daytona. Hopefully he can make some adjustments, I was actually shocked he started that low(class) this season.

Is it game time yet?

That was my point. He comes off as a spoiled, whiny B. I really don't think we should hold a telethon for the tough life of multi-million dollar athlete's and their tough life. You don't understand things. You're right on that one. I thought you were questioning my sarcastic comment on feeling sorry for Lance.

Gotta have a hitter's background in center....maybe we just leave that part blank!

That was my point. He comes off as a spoiled, whiny B. I really don't think we should hold a telethon for the tough life of multi-million dollar athlete's and their tough life.

You know I feel for Lance. It must be very difficult to play a game, and cash a huge check when you have to play at older places that don't have expansive, lush clubhouses or indoor batting cages. I'm sure he's used to that beautiful astrodome or the centerfield where he had to run uphill to catch deep flies. I think we should organize a telethon to help with these hardships. He may be right on many issues there, but he comes off as a baby and a bit of a jag.

It makes sense to have one at wrigley, half the people don't realize they are at a live game anyway. Might as well add to the sports bar experience for them. I can take or leave them. They usually appeal to the borderline baseball fans rather than the hardcore people that go to games for the actual baseball not the fan experience. Might help get some kids to get into the game. If they think it will help build the club, don't have a problem.

Always in the back of my mind, but I still hold on to the fact that Theo could have gone to any number of clubs sooner or later. So I can't see him going to the cubs unless he was sure he could spend some money. I sure hope I'm right because if they can't spend a good amount of cash on this team, we may be looking at a very long time until we are contenders.

They went through this last year. Marmol was horrid early, actually worse than this year but ended the year 3-3 with 20 saves in 23 chances. He saved 19 of his last 20. I was pretty sure that he would return to the role sometime this season unless Fujikawa was awesome, which I had my doubts on. Right now Russell and Marmol are throwing the best in the pen. I am sure he'll get some shots but it would make sense to go match ups until someone steps up and is decent consistently.

For this team right now the difference of having a great closer could be 5 games, maybe a few more tops. Absolutely no reason to spend any more money on a retread closer for this year. Makes much more sense to try to work Marmol in to up his value(if that's even possible) and to see if Fujikawa can do the job or not. If that fails, 3rd choice would be to see if there is anyone on the that can possibly be the guy.

AP report today mentioned the expected fight in the courts but it also quoted Ricketts as saying the new signage and jumbotron would not impact the view from the rooftops.

gotcha, forgot about that. That changes a few things. I still think he has the stuff for the job, but if he can be a starter, he is certainly interesting in that role also. Especially since there aren't many arms in our system close to being ready for the majors.

Nah, sorry. Missed it. I have no doubt the Cubs are winning the PR on this. Can't see why anyone other than the business owners don't want to see this done, especially when it would/should help the team. Also I expect them to put this revenue into the team, I really don't need them to "assure" us because that means nothing anyway. Since they are going at this with their own money for a large part, rather than pulling a J.Loria and holding the city/state hostage for funds (which we know they could have gotten) I trust they are doing this to better the team. I just hope it's as easy as it sounds.

That money they have is so back-loaded in mortgage refinancing, they can't sustain any long-term dispute and now with the city involved, they'll have to sue the city of Chicago. The landmark status of Wrigley has always been a greater hurdle than the rooftop owners, best case scenario for the rooftop owner is settling out of court for a fraction of what they want. Not sure how you know what the mortgage situation is for these businesses but it seems to me that would be all the more reason to fight this. If they lose the rooftop venues, they'll probably lose the property at the back end because it won't be profitable and it won't be sellable at that price.

Before we get any to name calling let's just get back to the situation. First, how many million dollar construction projects are stopped by an injunction. Happens all the time and they have lawyers too. Sometimes powerful people push the envelope because they want something not because they think they have the contractual rights. Usually it's because they know that they can pay them off, or force a deal because they are more powerful not more in the right. I want this to happen, it is for the betterment of the cubs long term. I also think it's better for the rooftop and neighborhood people to get something now to try to have some relevance in the future rather than fight to keep those 11 years and be out in the cold at that time. The sooner the cubs get this done, the better it is for us. Hey, I hope they win with no fight at all. less money spent on this, more money spent on the club hopefully. I am trying to argue any points here, I simply don't know what the actual contract says and I pretty sure other than a snippet from the paper, no one here knows exactly what the thing says either. I'm sure it's many,many pages of legal jumbo and while that small part from the paper sounds good, we have no idea the entire context it comes in. My thought on this is I can't imagine business entities of this size and value would be so careless to not protect their businesses for the length of that contract. That would be beyond bad judgement. I also said that it would be stupid to play the hard line role on this, if it was so simple for the cubs and the city to do this. That is almost as bad. To me it seems that the rooftops certainly feel they have something to stand on over this.

"We are pleased the Chicago Cubs will participate in a community process to flesh out these details more in-depth. However, no community process, city ordinance, or agreement without our consent can or should dismiss contractual rights granted to us by the Chicago Cubs in 2004. Rooftop owners reserve the right to use any and all means necessary to enforce the remaining 11 years of our 20-year contract. We, as well as every interested party in the Lakeview neighborhood, will study the plans submitted to the City of Chicago and play a constructive role in moving forward." -Wrigleyville Rooftops Association from your post David. I don't take that as giving in very easily. I also saw your post about the language of the contract. That's the kicker. I just can't see them not protecting a very profitable investment from something so easily done. Hopefully it is that bad a deal and they can just go through with it. I would just be shocked by it. David, Just saw the quote there. I hope that is the case but that is a report not the actual contract. I'm sure the rooftops don't have the resources of the cubs/ricketts. But those buildings weren't cheap and that probably isn't their only venture. I'm sure we're talking multi-millionaires, who are facing losing a large revenue stream, and property values(things millionaires don't like) they'll fight and they'll have some resources. Again, I have to believe they have some legal leg to stand on, if not you would think they would have been working with the cubs on something to try to save their ventures. Playing the hard line with a contract that has something that easy for the club to do, seems pretty stupid for them. I'm sure they couldn't feel the city would back them over the cubs.

I do, but I also see where the rooftops are implying it won't happen without their OK because of that 20 year deal. I don't know what it says in the deal. It would make sense to have something in there about signage or new construction blocking the view. If so, it would be tied up in courts for a long time and depending on what the contract actually entails, they'll probably win. The courts have power over the city and the cubs on this and they have to follow the law, not any local interests. I'm sure the rooftops will go as far as necessary to fight this. This would end their business, kill their property values and cost them millions, they won't go quietly. I can't believe they would put a deal together for 20 years that could be circumvented easily. Allowing signage or construction that blocks the view, ends the business for them. It would be pretty dumb to not protect that but maybe the trusted the Cubs. Most successful businesses don't trust anyone that much.

No one wants them to move. They probably will never move, I know they want to refurbish like the red sox did with Fenway. However everyone reaches a breaking point. 11 more years of absolutely no concessions from the "rooftops" could push the envelope. The have a contract. Not sure exactly what it says they have to get for that contract but short term they have no reason to OK any changes. And it sounds like they are sticking to that line. I guess the point is long term it's better for everyone in the area to try to work together or I can pretty much assume in 11 years when the ball is completely in the Cubs court, they will have no chance of any future cubs revenue. Knowing that, there would be very little chance to even sell the property at any value (rooftops) or at least not close to the value it has as a rooftop venue. bottom line is they have short term power but that pales in comparison to the long term power of the cubs in this battle.

Do they realize exactly how valuable that property would be if they packed up wrigley brick by brick and moved to the suburbs? They(neighborhood) need the Cubs and Wrigley Field, not the other way around. Time to work together and get a deal done before everyone's property value drops to below 0, not just rooftop owners.