Jehrico

Oops...shoulda went another page deep to see if there was a thread on it.

98Navigator in the Cuban thread posted a link to a story in the Cub Reporter. That story had a link to this: http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/26/commentary/sportsbiz/ I hope so...I hate DirectTV, and don't want to see them get any exclusive deals with any of the leagues (darned you NFL!), as I refuse to get their service, even if it meant never seeing a Cubs, Bulls, or Bears game again. This story makes me very happy...

I sure hope Bruce meant "certain right-handed pitchers this spring" because the numbers that Murton has put up against righties are solid. Piniella did say he is a stat guy a couple of days ago, and this line-up seems to back that up. My guess/hope is that the decision to start Floyd over Murton will be based on the individual match-up against the pitcher or in some cases the team (sometimes hitters just don't fare well against a certain team or in a certain park) and not a straight righty/lefty platoon. The health of the player will of course also be a factor. Yet another thing I will be anxiously watching this spring. In any case, it is great to see Murton chosen to bat 2nd in any situation after the way Dusty filled the two hole. Also, it just goes to show that lists like the one of which Cubs were being considered for the two slot that were appearing in the papers (most of which did not include Murton) should be taken with a big ol' grain of salt. Unless Bruce Miles is writing them, of course. :wink: It's hard to know what to read into that statement. Floyd's got to get some at bats in the spring too. Floyd starting against righties could just as easily mean Piniella doesn't think Floyd can hit lefties as it could mean he thinks Murton isn't good against righties.

I agree that most of the signs point to them keeping the Cubs, but I don't agree that removing the "Interim" from McDonoughs tag is one of them. It doesn't change much if they own the team, they're still free to replace him at their leisure. It's common practice in corporate acquisitions to prop your people up before the business is sold so as to give the people who used to work for you either a) more job security under the new owner, or b) grounds to demand more compensation in the event that the new owner decides to put his own people in. They could simply be trying to take care of McDonough in the event they do sell the team by giving him that title, which shouldn't have anything other than a negligible impact )if that, especially considering the demand) on the ultimate selling price of the team.

But the Tribune can sell the Cubs whenever they want. The deadline is for TRB reorganization in general. The Cubs are just a very small part of that plan. Everything that I've read claims that Tribune wouldn't sell the Cubs if they opt to recapitalize. The Cubs and WGN are arguably the most profitable assets of Tribune company. It seems odd that they would use resources to reorganize if they plan to divest themselves of the Cubs; it would be more efficient to just sell the Cubs to the highest bidder and use the profits to appease the shareholders. Or it could be more profitable to give the impression that you aren't selling the Cubs, thus, hopefully driving up the offers from potential buyers. Again, we're talking about the Cubs. The offers will be there. These are business people and they aren't going to outbid themselves. Either the news report, of the specific dollar amount, is false; Cuban is crazy; or just a bad negotiator. There is no advantage in letting your competitors know your bid amount (it is not public). Zell is not disclosing his offer. Forbes has already apprasised it's value (add to that the recent sale of the Braves and any reasonable person can assume the starting bid for the Cubs). I find it hard to believe that Cuban would say this publically. Cuban may be a businessman and a billionaire, but he's also an eccentric person who's been rumored for years to have a deep desire to buy the team, so he shouldn't be underestimated. It's hard to say what his angle is. He's most likely aware of the possibility that other owners will disapprove of a sale to him. Like it was previously said, there will be numerous bidders for the Cubs. If another group that the other owners likes bids pretty close to what he bids, he could be SOL despite being top bidder. He may be hoping that if some other potential groups see his initial offer, they'll think they have to outbid him, and ultimately decide to withdraw from contention. There's an opportunity cost that could be lost by leaving millions sitting around waiting to buy the team only to not win the club. So Cuban's got that going for him. The chances of him getting the club only improve if he can scare off other prospective buyers who more closely fit the "mold" that other owners are looking for.

Ever feel like calling your wife your interim wife? :lol:

He's feeling lucky that he possibly has a case for getting out of the contract. good point. Has anyone actually voided a contract on those grounds? Everyone thought Giambi was gone, but the Yankmees stuck with him. Wasn't there someone else that was in a similar situation?

"Dude can't field..."

I wonder how Moreno is feeling about this, considering he's already been raked over the coals for giving him 55 mil...

[punch]Ka Pow![/punch] Don't get excited about Prior and Wood.

Thought I would throw in my 2 cents on Guzman despite the Marquis discussion...I share the same concern over his workload last year, and am concerned about him starting. He was hurt and limited in innings pitched in '03, '04, and '05. Last year was his first full year pitching in quite awhile. Then, when the season was over, they sent him to pitch in the winter leagues. I would have rather they given him the time off to make sure he's fresh for the offseason rather than throwing competitively. If he flames out this year, I think that will be a major contributing factor. That said, if he's not pitching in Chicago, he'll be pitching in Iowa, so worrying about how he'll hold up after his workload the last year isn't going to do any good. His innings aren't going to be any more limited in either case. Considering that, if he's one of the best 5 starters coming out of ST, I'd rather he were pitching in Chicago than Iowa.

I think the big difference is that Perry wants guys to look for a pitch that they can make solid contact on, regardless of whether it's a strike or not. Baker wouldn't acknowledge that sometimes pitches can be strikes and also be more or less unhittable (unless you're looking for Juan Pierre quality contact), and wanted them swinging at anything that was close enough for blind Angel Hernandez to call a strike.

Cable never had Sunday Ticket. I can't speak for all cable companies, but I got it on cable in the late 90s.

You surely can't be saying that we're getting above average scoring out of below-average players due to his play-calling, are you? How often in the Super Bowl have you seen a team pass on first and second down for no yardage, then try to run the ball on third down? We scored alot more points in the first half of the season than we did in the second half of the season, and I think a big part of that was they were underestimating our receivers (namely Berrian) and Grossman. After the Arizona game, teams figured out how to attack our offense, and it showed. Turner never adjusted. Also, as far as our offensive numbers go, we played the weakest schedule in the NFL this year, and that also contributed to our numbers (no, I don't buy that as an excuse to say we were overrated, we weren't...).

Maybe this is a rant, maybe this is social, I don't know. I'm not upset at Rivera being ousted for Babich...it doesn't sound like we're going down in quality at all. However, if you're going to can Rivera, how can you keep the idiot offensive coordinator on the staff? It just seems highly unfair. Not only did he call an incredibly stupid offensive scheme (2nd worse only to Shoop), when it became apparent how teams were having success attacking Grossman and his performance was suffering for it, he refused to make any adjustment on the line or in the play calling to compensate. He stubbornly forced his game plan to work, and more often than not, it didn't. It was almost as if he was too proud to make in game adjustments to counter the opponents defensive schemes. He had better not come back this fall.

I'm with you on Ronny. Key with him I think is he has to be handled correctly in order to establish his confidence at that level. His continued sucktitude last year was due in part, I think, to Dusty and crew continuing to tell him he was taking good cuts and to keep doing what he was doing. I think he will benefit more than anyone on the roster by the change in coaching staff if given the chance.

I don't think that would be a very good idea at all... http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/cubs.asp?id=282629 Murton's name is not mentioned anywhere for the 2-spot. Barret's is though, I could handle that. He also lists DeRosa (as expected), and Izturdis (blech) as other potential #2 hitters. One neat blurb from the article:

There's no Neifi or Macias on this team...that right there is reason enough for optimism! Unfortunately, we got Shawn Estes back this year, only he changed his name to Jason Marquis.

fixed. :)

My respect for Tavarez just shot up. He's still a cheater

I'm not so sure of that. Didn't Grudz get a vote or two for the NL MVP that year? So did Russ Ortiz (complete with 3.81 ERA), what's your point? I think he's just saying that if he got a vote for the MVP, he at least must have played well enough to justify the team playing him over a prospect who is waiting also, even if he didn't really completely deserve that MVP vote (I don't think anybody would really argue that he did. :D) It wasn't a first place vote. I think it was on the ballot where the guy voted all Cubs. Didn't he get 3 third place votes?

Hope I'm not regressing the thread, but I don't think it's fair to say they don't like Hill based on passing him over for Gooz (or for any other time they sent him down/kept him down). He clearly had confidence problems. Even if he's tearing it up in AAA, if they don't think he's mentally ready yet, maybe they felt he needed to dominate a little while longer in order to get that confidence up to where they wanted to see it. Personally, I thought at the time they weren't showing him enough patience, and maybe that was affecting his confidence. It's hard to say. What is easy to say though was their strategy worked. He finally did gain his confidence, and tore it up once he did. I hope he shows the same confidence and attacks hitters like he did at the end of last year during ST, and I hope they realize it and they give him the support you would think he deserves. I'm reserving judgement until Lou gives me something to judge on.

If both Miller and Hill do well, I think Hill gets the spot before Miller. Miller should be hoping for someone else to bomb out.

You better find the closes piece of wood, and knock on it until your knuckles bleed!

I'm with you. In fact, I think it's a pretty bad idea not to skip the 5th starter when the schedule allows. Oh well. I don't think you should have set rules that you live by when making those calls, I think you should look at the whole situation. If your number 5 guy is throwing well, and you've got someone like Glendon Rusch on the mound throwing against you, I save my ace for the next game. If there's little chance you can win the game with your #5, and there was a day off since your ace's last time so he can throw on schedule, then you should always try to win that game.