CUBZ99

Every once in a while Baker makes a comment that makes sense. :lol:

I always thought Aardsma was able to hit 97-98? I could be wrong though. As with Cubswin, I also heard that Aardsma could hit that high on his FB, but his control would be not the average. Besides...I rather Aardsma hitting 92-95 and able to hit his spots, instead of throwing high 90s, and NOT knowing where the ball was going. If Aardsma stays inside his game, he could ACTUALLY help the Cubs later in the season. Ron P. may have already addressed this topic, but it would be interesting to see what he thinks of Aardsma after seeing him for half a year. It seems by his use this spring that the Cubs like him quite a bit.

I frequently support giving Dusty a break, and this is spring training, but his lineups make me laugh daily. Bruce -- the other day in the paper I thought you said that Dusty and the other coaches turned in their suggestions for the final 25 man roster. Does this mean that Hendry is calling all of the shots in regard to the 25 man? If so, does Hendry have a tighter reign on the roster/playing decisions this year? Also, does the fact that Grissom is not on the 40 man roster make it more difficult for him to make the team over someone like Pagan?

I never said you did. I was poking fun at your comment (very poorly apparently). :)

Because Dusty would have the sense to not bat Neifi near the top of the lineup for any period of time? The guy had 390 plate appearances at the 1-2 spot last year, 274 of them hitting second(exact same number as Todd Walker). If you don't think Dusty is going to do that again, that's fine. But labelling people as paranoid because Dusty has done it before and is doing it again(albeit in spring training) is unnecessary and ultimatlely wrong. I'm just pointing out that it may be a little premature to get on Dusty based on one spring training lineup. Especially one in which half of the lineup was backups. I have no doubt that Dusty will make stupid lineups this year. But to jump on one/two spring training lineups is a little neurotic. Especially since the majority of ST neifi has been batting at the bottom of the order.

How so? This is from the 3/20 game thread: You can't be serious. You just CAN'T. Does this help you understand our chicken little syndrome a little better? :D Oh, and that line up ranks right up there among the worst I've ever seen. Let's hope he doesn't actually use that one during the regular season. Let's hope he's just getting it out of his system now. Funny that you quoted Bruce's lineup, but left out Bruce's comments later in the thread saying don't read too much into Neifi batting second because it was just one/two games and Dusty did not see Neifi as a 2 hitter. I think you are right, the Chicken Little theory may have some credence.

It has been nice seeing the expectations for the Cubs rise since Dusty became manager and the 2003 season was one of the wildest rides in Cubs history. Sure Dusty has his problems, but I'm not ready to give up on him this early in the season. Couple things that I've noticed about this year as compared to last: 1. Dusty is actually backing some young players (Murton, Cedeno, Marshall). There was an article the other day, I think it was written by Bruce, about the Cubs farm system and how this year Hendry decided to let the kids play in ST instead of invited a bunch of AAA roster fillers. The article made some good points about the overhyping of the Cubs farm system in the past and that how this year the Cubs position prospects actually have performed decently when given the chance. 2. It appears that Dusty actually realizes that Neifi is not a top of the order hitter, or an everyday player. Sure Dusty would never say that in that manner, but it is pretty apparent so far from Neifi's usage that he is viewed as a utility, defensive specialist IF. The other thing that I like about Dusty is that he wants to win the World Series in Chicago, as much or more than we (the fans) do. Dusty does a good job at BSing sometimes, but there is no denying that he cannot stand to lose. I know that you could say the same for everyother manager in the league, but Dusty, more than any other Cubs manager displays that persona. With all that said, I'm going to wish him well this year and hope the Cubs have a great season. I think he realizes this is likely his last chance to straighten things out.

Your right, none of the SP is looking good outside Z and Maddux.

My sentiments exactly. The Cubs playoff hopes have hinged on 1 or 2 games in the past, so it is not necessarily wise to just throw away games. If he gets beat out fairly by Ryu, Marshall or Guzman so be it. If Hill is a waste or they missed out on his inflated trade value then it is unfortunate, but they aren't exactly in the position right now to be giving out charity starts at the start of a new season.

Lee isn't playing today. According to Santo, he'll take another couple of days off. Blanco is starting today. No lineups?

Sad to hear that. That is a side of Stone that I don't see/hear. So I will have to take yours and others posters word on it.

You do realize Steve Stone isn't a doctor, never gives any real solid baseball information when interviewed, usually gives vague answeres to specific questions and has a Paul Bunyan sized axe to grind with the Cubs, right? And he is negative about everything so considering he is commenting about the Cubs has a better than average chance of being right even if he has no clue what he is talking about. Does Stoney speak different on the radio than he does for say his ESPN games? I watched an ESPN game last year and he had nothing but positive things to say about the Cubs -- AND they weren't even playing in the game. There is no doubt in my mind that Stoney is one of the biggest Cubs homers around and it is pretty pathetic that both sides can't let it drop. The Cubs do themselves no good by trying running out of town an analyst who was simply frustrated with a bad team and spoke his mind on the air. There also seems to be a pattern of publicly disgracing anyone who disagrees with them or whom they don't like. My guess is that once Walker is traded we will hear every negative thing that he has done since donning a Cubs uniform. Maybe they even have video surviellance of him leaving a game early, etc.

You do realize Steve Stone isn't a doctor, never gives any real solid baseball information when interviewed, usually gives vague answeres to specific questions and has a Paul Bunyan sized axe to grind with the Cubs, right? Looks like Stoney was right on this one, reguardless of any issues he has with the Cubs. I find it funny that Prior talked about how suprised he was to find out he was injured and claimed that he felt great etc. Not even the most adamant Hendry/Cubs Front office supporters buy that garbage. Why not just give it up to Carroll for delivering the scoop and move on? The Cubs and their players would be better off not taking everything so personal.

I agree with you, but my overall point was that you can't dismiss Rusch as being a horrible starter when his stats show that in the NL central he is an above avg. 5th starter. And it is possible that the other options the Cubs have could actually be worse than Rusch (like last year). Sometimes I think it is too easy to make over uninformed over-generalized statements about role players like Rusch. How do the statistics show he is an above average 5th starter? I haven't looked at them compared to the league, but I find it hard to believe that Rusch's 90ish ERA+, 1.4 - 1.5 WHIP, and lack of noteworthy peripherals would rank that well. Believe it or not if you look at the NL Central the Cardinals are the only team that had a better 5th starter based on ERA. Houston #4 - Backe 4.76 ERA WHIP 1.46 #5 - Rodriquez 5.53 ERA WHIP 1.46 #5 - Astacio 5.67 ERA WHIP 1.54 Reds #2 - Milton 6.47 ERA WHIP 1.55 #3 - Ortiz 5.36 ERA WHIP 1.50 #4 - Clausen 4.21 ERA WHIP 1.41 #5 - Hudson 6.38 ERA WHIP 1.57 Pirates #1(?) - Wells 5.29 ERA WHIP 1.57 #2 - Redman 4.90 ERA WHIP 1.37 #3 - Perez 5.85 ERA WHIP 1.67 #4 - Williams 4.41 ERA WHIP 1.41 #5 - Fogg 5.05 ERA WHIP 1.47 Brewers Santos 4.57 ERA WHIP 1.50 Ohka 4.35 ERA WHIP 1.37 Glover 5.57 ERA WHIP 1.45 Obermueller 5.26 ERA WHIP 1.69

I agree with you, but my overall point was that you can't dismiss Rusch as being a horrible starter when his stats show that in the NL central he is an above avg. 5th starter. And it is possible that the other options the Cubs have could actually be worse than Rusch (like last year). Sometimes I think it is too easy to make over uninformed over-generalized statements about role players like Rusch.

They can help take the strain off of an overworked bullpen, which is what happened to the Cubs last year. That doesn't change the fact that almost anybody can do it. Hill could do what Rusch does (suck for 5-6 innings at a time), and do it cheaper. Maybe you should check the stats, because Hill actually performed considerably worse than Rusch last year with a 9.13 ERA. Among the other #5 starters Koronka had a 7.47 ERA and Mitre had a 5.37 ERA. So if your argument is that Rusch and his 4.50 ERA is garbage, your argument is utterly ridiculous as well as uninformed. Based on some of your argument regarding "innings eaters" and how little value they had, I looked up some of the pitching staffs in the NL Central. Suprisingly, compared to NL central staffs Rusch is was actually better than or equivalent to every other teams #5 starters (except the Cardinals Marquis 4.13 ERA). Also, Rusch's ERA was better than most NL central teams #4 starters. I know it may be popular to criticize Rusch, due to the fact that his stuff is not the greatest or that he is not the flashiest pitcher, but if you would like to make the argument that he is a worthless pitcher or worthless to the Cubs please back your statement up with some actual facts or substance. Rich Hill threw 24.2 innings in 2005. He only started 4 of the 10 games he appeared in. Simply saying that Rusch was better because of Hill's misuage and ineffectiveness last year is not correct. Hill was far was good last year but the extremely small sample size and use of the bullpen has as much do to with that as anything. Do you suggest a measure of how effective a pitcher was beside performance? His statement that Hill could be as effective as Rusch has been for the Cubs is not substantiated by anything other than his "opinion." All I'm asking is that if someone makes a broad statement or tries to criticize the use of a term "innings eater", etc have something to back it up.

They can help take the strain off of an overworked bullpen, which is what happened to the Cubs last year. That doesn't change the fact that almost anybody can do it. Hill could do what Rusch does (suck for 5-6 innings at a time), and do it cheaper. Maybe you should check the stats, because Hill actually performed considerably worse than Rusch last year with a 9.13 ERA. Among the other #5 starters Koronka had a 7.47 ERA and Mitre had a 5.37 ERA. So if your argument is that Rusch and his 4.50 ERA is garbage, your argument is utterly ridiculous as well as uninformed. Based on some of your argument regarding "innings eaters" and how little value they had, I looked up some of the pitching staffs in the NL Central. Suprisingly, compared to NL central staffs Rusch is was actually better than or equivalent to every other teams #5 starters (except the Cardinals Marquis 4.13 ERA). Also, Rusch's ERA was better than most NL central teams #4 starters. I know it may be popular to criticize Rusch, due to the fact that his stuff is not the greatest or that he is not the flashiest pitcher, but if you would like to make the argument that he is a worthless pitcher or worthless to the Cubs please back your statement up with some actual facts or substance.

Welcome to the forum! Bruce Miles posts here occasionally and thankfully. I am hoping once he gets word he will pass it along to us. I wonder how Bruce feels about the Cubs telling the beat reporters that Prior was fine, etc.

I may be alone on this one, but the Rusch signing is looking pretty good right now. To have a guy that can make 2 or 3 starts in April until Wood, Miller and/or Prior come back is a luxury. I know alot of people don't like Rusch much, but he has shown in his time with the Cubs so far that he can eat up some innings and hold his own.

Huh? i'm guessing prior won't be in the rotation to begin the season. z, maddux, williams, rusch, hill/guz/marshall. ew. Lets hope Guzman can stay healthy for a month or two.

Jerry Hairston's not bad and Walker isnt Cubs garbage. Jerry Hairston is a backup who can't stay healthy a whole season and the only place Walker has value is on this board.

Maybe he is. This could just be a coincidence. He even said on The Score that he wasn't really sure. Most likely it was a guess. I thought Will Carroll said it was an elbow problem? :?

Seems like Baltimore is becoming the dumping grounds for the Cubs garbage. Sooner or later it would be nice if the Cubs got back a decent player.

I think the fear is he could be playing hsi way out of a job a la Bobby Hill in 2003. Hill never did recover from that ST.

Cubs.com Is that a backhanded insult to Jerry and Neifi? I agree, but I didn't expect him to come out and say if he plays, he's better than those two. :lol: Walker is not afraid to speak his mind it seems. I think I would have to concur with him on his comments.