hawkeyecub

? I don't get it. Didn't Patterson rope a double down the right field line yesterday? How was he sent home? Yeah he did. I didn't catch anything after the top of the 5th, but he didn't stay in after that AB did he?

Fuld may be replacing Patterson at least temporarily. The Score just reported that he was sent home yesterday after showing up late and wasn't at the park as of 4:45 today.

*Groans* Pretty much what I figured. Don't look for the Cubs to do anything this offseason. 2008 is going to be a crappy year. Not necessarily. It will be a lot like this year because most of the roster is locked up. We might not be much better, but fortunately the division shouldn't be a lot better either.

There's a difference in having great stuff and harnessing or maximizing that great stuff. His control isn't that great. That factors in to determining how great a pitchers 'stuff' is. Is there a stat on "stuff"? No. You use your eyes.

Apparently Z will give some fake, prepared apology at a press conference at 3:45.

You can have it both ways, there aren't many pitchers out there with his talent and it appears he is his own worst enemy at times, yesterday just happened to be what appears to be a crucial time in the season. People are combining composure with emotions, you can be emotional and still maintain the composure to be effective out there. I don't care if he's emotional out there (although, I think he's showing up the opponent many times) if he keeps his composure. Exactly. That's the biggest thing people seem to miss in this argument. There are plenty of football players who are just as emotional as Z if not more. They still have to keep their composure to make their reads, carry out their assignments and in the case of a guy like Ray Lewis, make calls and align their teammates. Obviously Z isn't a football player and the comparison isn't perfect. But the point is, just because Z gets excited and his emotions run wild, shouldn't mean he can't keep his head and still perform. Being emotional and still keeping your head enough to be able to perform shouldn't be an either/or proposition. And it isn't for anyone other than Z.

What Derwood is saying is that the implications of making the playoffs could be much much worse than an NBA team sneaking out of the lottery. Using the assumption that a playoff appearance validates the organizational phlosophy and therefore would mean continued lack of hope for a truly good team and missing the playoffs would create a turnover in front office personel, I see where he's coming from. HOWEVER, as Rais is pointing out, those are some big assumptions. Missing the playoffs might cause a change in the regime, but theres no guarantee it will be an upgrade. While I'm no Hendry fan, there are worse options out there. Its no guarantee that DePo will be his predecessor if we miss the playoffs. I know exactly what he's saying and I addressed that in my post. Did you stop reading after the first paragraph? Like I said, eventually new ownership will want their own people in charge. Hendry isn't great but he isn't awful either. I think he's pretty much middle of the road. Therefore I wouldn't root for us to lose to see his firing, because there's no sure thing improvement. Also there is so much money tied up at several spots, the core of the team will be the same regardless. There isn't a lot of flexibility for next year's roster and possibly even '09.

Of course we do. This isn't the NBA where making the playoffs means nothing and means you get a lesser quality draft pick (who can make instant impact). There are few enough teams and the nature of the game makes it so that any of the 4 teams have a very reasonable chance at getting to the World Series. Especially in the NL. We're getting new ownership regardless of what happens this year and they're eventually going to get their people in here. Hendry isn't such a disaster that his being retained an additional year will significantly hamstring our chances in the near future. We have a ton of money tied up already and I believe he's committed and forced to making cost-effective moves. Really whether he comes back or not, the core and bulk of the team will be roughly the same in '08 and probably '09.

True, and fans should also know that cheering won't help a player either. The effect of the crowd on the performance of athletes, at least in baseball, isn't all that much. I don't think I agree with that. Players are human. Getting booed causes them to think about that, feel upset/hurt/angry/whatever and probably less comfortable. These things change your mental approach or mindset which is important in baseball.

The fans are concered that their ballclub is blowing a golden opportunity at a playoff berth. I fail to see how that is "only thinking of themselves." Wouldn't it also be a good thing for........oh I dunno.....everyone else if the Cubs made it? Fans boo because they want better for their team and their city, as well as themselves. Saying it's a selfish thing to boo is a total misread, IMO. It just shows me that Z's head isn't where it needs to be. What Z most desperately needs is to find out why he no longer gets hitters out when he has done so consistently for 4 years. And he needs to find that out in very short order. Do people really not think booing is selfish? Of course it is. The only reason Joe Schmoe in the bleachers boos Z for a bad performance is so he can make HIS feelings known. It doesn't make Z perform any better or create any positive outcome for the team. The only person it benefits is the booer. Therefore it is selfish. For the 8,000th time, no one is saying fans don't have the right to boo. For some reason it's the automatic line that everyone has to repeat when this type of thing happens. You have the right to boo anyone you want. That just doesn't mean it's always right. There is a difference. I don't recall harping that "fans have the right to boo," but I strongly disagree that it is solely a selfish act and your explanation rings untrue to me. The "right to boo" thing wasn't directed at you, but it's been said a bunch of times in this thread. How do you disagree that it's not selfish? The fans are booing because they are upset and they want the player to know that. They should know that booing your own team's player doesn't help him to perform better.

The fans are concered that their ballclub is blowing a golden opportunity at a playoff berth. I fail to see how that is "only thinking of themselves." Wouldn't it also be a good thing for........oh I dunno.....everyone else if the Cubs made it? Fans boo because they want better for their team and their city, as well as themselves. Saying it's a selfish thing to boo is a total misread, IMO. It just shows me that Z's head isn't where it needs to be. What Z most desperately needs is to find out why he no longer gets hitters out when he has done so consistently for 4 years. And he needs to find that out in very short order. Do people really not think booing is selfish? Of course it is. The only reason Joe Schmoe in the bleachers boos Z for a bad performance is so he can make HIS feelings known. It doesn't make Z perform any better or create any positive outcome for the team. The only person it benefits is the booer. Therefore it is selfish. For the 8,000th time, no one is saying fans don't have the right to boo. For some reason it's the automatic line that everyone has to repeat when this type of thing happens. You have the right to boo anyone you want. That just doesn't mean it's always right. There is a difference.

Why is it that every time this type of thing comes up, 15 people start in with "Fans have the right to boo"? I don't think anyone reasonable says that fans don't have the right to boo. That's certainly their right. I just don't necessarily think it's the right thing to do, especially in this case. I understand why they were upset, so I'm not upset with the fans. But the last thing Z needs is another mental battle. I just don't think the booing results in anything positive, other than some fans getting stuff off their chest. So in that regard, Carlos is right.

Yea ok man whatever get real Get real about what? Tell me. Please. You would have been complaining about Floyd if he made that play and you know you would. Since you're stuck on Murton's jock, you think it's wrong to say something when he makes a bad play. Why? Im not stuck on Murtons jock but hes better than Floyd and gives the Cubs a better chance to win. The anti Hill and Murton sentiment is just as bad as the people who praise them so like I said get real You're not? LOL okay. What anti-Murton sentiment was there? I saw none. He made a terrible play and a couple of people said "What kind of play was that". Then you and vance and others came in with a "Are you serious? How dare you" type response and created some strawman argument as if we were criticizing him for the whole game. I'm asking you why people couldn't say that was a terrible play. It was.

Yea ok man whatever get real Get real about what? Tell me. Please. You would have been complaining about Floyd if he made that play and you know you would. Since you're stuck on Murton's jock, you think it's wrong to say something when he makes a bad play. Why? Im not stuck on Murtons jock but hes better than Floyd and gives the Cubs a better chance to win. The anti Hill and Murton sentiment is just as bad as the people who praise them so like I said get real You're not? LOL okay. What anti-Murton sentiment was there? I saw none. He made a terrible play and a couple of people said "What kind of play was that". Then you and vance and others came in with a "Are you serious? How dare you" type response and created some strawman argument as if we were criticizing him for the whole game. I'm asking you why people couldn't say that was a terrible play. It was.

Yea ok man whatever get real Get real about what? Tell me. Please. You would have been complaining about Floyd if he made that play and you know you would. Since you're stuck on Murton's jock, you think it's wrong to say something when he makes a bad play. Why?

Yea ok man whatever get real Get real about what? Tell me. Please. You would have been complaining about Floyd if he made that play and you know you would. Since you're stuck on Murton's jock, you think it's wrong to say something when he makes a bad play. Why?

If Cliff Floyd or Jacque made that play, Keener and others would be lining up to say how the old man overran it on his wheelchair and how terrible he is. But if Murton makes the same play you can't criticize THAT ONE PLAY? It's truly incredible. If Lee or Ramirez or anyone on the team makes an error, people can call them out for making a bad play. It doesn't mean they're saying that they are a horrible person or should be to blame for all of the problems today. Some of you are on his jock so hard that you can't admit when he makes a mistake without starting a strawman argument. It's pathetic. And I like Murt.

LOL did you see the play? He made a terrible play, why can't he be criticized for that one bad play? No one is saying he cost the game.

YEAH, DAMN YOU, MATT MURTON! Oh here we go again. Just because his bad play wasn't the worst thing of the day doesn't mean you can't comment on it when it happens. Did you see the route he took? It was atrocious. Then he air-mailed the throw when we had a runner on the ground between 2nd and 3rd. Can he ever just be called out for a bad play without people thinking that he's being blamed for everything or that people are saying he sucks? He's either treated like a bum or baby Jesus. Why can't there just be some honest middle ground?

Good to have Ohman back. Did Murton see that ball? That was a bizarre route to say the least. Then air mailing the cutoff man when they could have gotten an out.

what does "swing like a clean-up spot" even mean? I want all of my hitters trying to hit the ball hard somewhere, I hope you're not implying leadoff hitters should be slap hitters. We tried that already, it didn't work so well. I would hope youd know the difference between the job of a leadoff man and a clean up hitter. So you want him to either move out of the leadoff spot or turn into a slap hitter? Yeah let's take away his best attribute and turn him into Juan Pierre. Why, why, why? How many times a game does he leadoff an inning after the first? So with a man on 1st and 2 outs, does he still have to swing "like a leadoff hitter" or can he "swing like a clean-up spot"?

I don't know why people are surprised that Soriano is struggling. He doesn't have a good grasp of the strike zone anyways and when you've missed 3 weeks that will only be magnified. It's going to take some time.

Would you really rather have Pie in there against a lefty than Jacque? I would. Jones has already established in his career that he cannot hit LHers. Maybe Pie can be taught to. Since it is an automatic out anyway, I would rather go with the youth and better defense. What I find even more troubling is Monroe being in the lineup. Of course I find it troubling that he is even on the team. Jacque is hitting .276/.344/.379 against lefties in 58 AB's this year. That's an automatic out? Not great, but better than in his past and better than Pie. Do you want to compare how Monroe has hit lefties this year compared to the other options?

Would you really rather have Pie in there against a lefty than Jacque?

who cares, Cubs are always going to lose no matter who is playing for the Cubs. Yet you just started a thread complaining about Zambrano's contract... Strange. As far as the original topic, I don't think anyone in the world thinks it's a good or smart contract. But sometimes when you have the resources the Cubs do and you're desperate, you have to overpay. There were situations in past years where they refused to overpay or hand out a huge contract and in part, our offense suffered. Obviously you don't want to make a habit out of that but sometimes you have to put yourself out there. You just hope that he can give us 5 relatively healthy and productive years and that in 2012 that contract doesn't look so bad so we have some options. I didn't expect him to come back from a 3-week layoff hot.