CUBZ99

He must have the goods on Lou and Cubs management.

Part of the problem is, you can't just "find out" by playing him this year. He could have a one off rookie of the year type season and still be no better than a 4th OF in the long run. I don't see the need to play him everyday. If Fukudome was already gone, fine. But letting an asset sit the bench because you want to see what Colvin may or may not be able to prove to you does not make sense. Unless there's already a deal in the works, I don't see how you can make a quality trade with him sitting everyday. You already have 2 other OF guys who are not 162 game players, why can't you just increase his playing time and see if he maintains his numbers? By benching Fukudome for Colvin you ensure that Fukudome's numbers don't continue to slide any further. In regard to Colvin, I don't think this is the year to treat him with kid gloves. The problem with playing him part time the rest of the year is that you have no idea what to expect next year or any indication of what the team's needs are in the off season. You may view Colvin as a 4th OF at best, but I'm almost certain the Cubs view him as a future starter. If that is the case, he should be out there everyday similar to Castro.

This was definitely the right move. At this point, Lou should be showcasing Grabow as much as possible and praying that he can be effective. Hopefully Hendry can pawn him off on some team before the trade deadline.

McCann was also injured for about a week. And the point still remains Hill has no business starting as much as he has over the last 3 weeks. Thank you. Story on Chicagosports.com says Soto will be starting 4 of the next 5 games, so who knows what Lou is doing.

Soto has absolutely zero leverage and to compare Soto to Joe Mauer or McCann is a joke.

We overrate Soto a lot, but yet you think Colvin should play more? Colvin is competing against 4 other people for 3 spots in the OF, all of whom have had a better career than Colvin has. Soriano and Byrd for the most part have been damn good this year, and Fuku started out really well, and still is the best option to leadoff we have on this team. What has Koyie Hill done in his career to justify playing more than Soto? Soto is younger, and has had a much better career offensively than Hill. Also, no matter what Lou or the other idiots in the media would like you to believe, the defensive difference between the 2 isn't much. The only person being overrated on this team is Tyler Colvin If only offense was the only thing that mattered as a catcher.

So now Ramirez is the root of all the Cubs problems? Hopefully this doesn't turn into something similar to the Bradley fiasco.

He could have been trying to bunt for a hit? As long as the runner moves over it still counts as a sac bunt. He could have missed a sign? The problem with the "Sandberg is in love with the sac bunt" argument is that the numbers don't support it. Even this year, Iowa has about as many sac bunts as the rest of the teams in the PCL. Does he just love it in bad bunting situations? You keep trying to spin this being only about sac bunts. It's not. It's about Sandberg's general philosophy towards the game based on what he himself has said and how he manages. He loves himself the small ball and the "gritty" play "the right way." Pass. If the Cubs had a stacked team that could overcome that philosophy, great, but given how things are shaping up for the next season or two he's a terrible option. Let him go manage the O's and then he can come back after Hendry is gone and the team is actually good. I'm not spinning anything. Look through this thread and you will see many references to his supposed love of sac bunts. People are now stating that he "loves sac bunts" like it is a fact. The facts show that his team sac bunts about the same amount of times as every other team in the league. Now you want to move the discussion to more abstract issues like "small ball" and grit, etc. What is your method of measuring his tendencies to play small ball or to have his teams play "grittier" than other teams? Does he require all his players to run out every ball put in play? Does hit and run or steal more than the other clubs?

He could have been trying to bunt for a hit? As long as the runner moves over it still counts as a sac bunt. He could have missed a sign? Or maybe he's heard his manager talk about the value of sac bunts so much that he got it into his head that it would be a good idea. That is surely a possibility. But in that case it shows the I.Q. of the player more than the manager.

He could have been trying to bunt for a hit? As long as the runner moves over it still counts as a sac bunt. He could have missed a sign? The problem with the "Sandberg is in love with the sac bunt" argument is that the numbers don't support it. Even this year, Iowa has about as many sac bunts as the rest of the teams in the PCL. Does he just love it in bad bunting situations?

People say this like it is true. Once again, the numbers in 2009 showed that his team sac bunted about the same amount of times as every other team in his division. We get one person that went to a couple of games and complained about Sandberg getting thrown out while making a pitching change, and witnessed a sac bunt in person. :shock: Hardly evidence that he has a love affair with the sac bunt. If he truly did love to sac bunt, wouldn't the numbers at least play that out? That game log that was posted doesn't prove anything other than Wright got credited with a sac bunt in a situation where it made absolutely no sense to sac bunt. Mistake of a very green minor league ballplayer or Sandberg?

Ty Wright? I suspect he was trying to get on via sac bunt especially considering that was his one and only SH of the year. He had 7 sacrifice bunts in 2009. Look at the overall team stats though. In Tennessee's div. Sac Bunt's Tennesee 58 Hunstville 55 Carolina 53 Chatanooga 65 West Tenn. 53 I don't see any vast difference between what Tenn and the rest of the division did.

If you look at the game log, there were no outs and a runner on second base when Wright bunted. Unless I get confirmation from Ryno or Wright themselves, I refuse to believe that any manager would be dumb enough to call for a sac bunt in that situation. What would be the purpose? Is everyone completely ruling out the possibility that Wright made the decision on his own or that he was bunting for a hit?

Vitters picked a terrible time to go into a prolonged slump. Not that the team would have called him up anyways, but, if he were hitting the cover off the ball in AA ala Castro it would have been interesting to see what the Cubs would do.

Didn't Silva strike out 11 Pirates in a game?

Scouting report?

Well its pretty idiotic to say colvin was a bad pick when he has had limited time in the majors. When you sign as a pick it does not make you a pro. Its until you're in the majors in my book. well, your book is wrong. Please explain? When you're paid to play baseball you're a professional baseball player. I'm not sure why you needed this very basic concept explained to you, but there you go. I don't think there is any dispute on that point and I think anyone that was reading his post could understand what his point was. The problem with piling on Colvin's minor league #'s, is that to say he has been bad, completely discounts the fact that he was not completely healthy during a substantial portion of the time. During the periods that he has been healthy, he has been productive and his major league production so far has been outstanding. As Sever82 points out, I'll take major league stats 10 times out of 10 over minor league stats. The other problem I have with looking at it from Abuck's perspective, is that if you are going to place a high value on minor league stats for Colvin, don't you have to use the same measure of success for Cashner? Its dishonest to say that Colvin was a bad pick because his minor league numbers were bad, but Cashner was a bad pick because he hasn't proven anything in the majors yet. When in reality, it is likely too early to judge either player.

Well its pretty idiotic to say colvin was a bad pick when he has had limited time in the majors. When you sign as a pick it does not make you a pro. Its until you're in the majors in my book. well, your book is wrong. Please explain?

yeah, i don't get the "well, i trust wilken, he hasn't let us down so far" line. if his 1st round success stories are a fourth outfielder and a middle reliever, i'm not going to be too wowed. Tyler Colvin could and should be starting and Cashner is about to become are setup man and he's only been up for a week. And Brett Jackson is already one of our better prospects. I would say he's done a pretty good job so far. could and should is meaningless. He's been a bad pro, and his success has been very limited. He could very easily be exposed if he starts. and first round picks should not be setup men. Which one has been a bad pro? Colvin has produced pretty darn well so far in limited action. In regard to Cashner, he has dominated the minor leagues all year this year as a starter. There is nothing at all to suggest that he wouldn't be effective as a starter in the majors. The decision to use him as a set up guy, wasn't made by Wilken.

I agree. I was impressed by his knowledge of all of the prospects and his commentary.

Not on anyone's top 200 board?

Callis thinks the Cubs will pick McGuire? That is even with Allie still on the board. #-o

I thought Lou's catchers weren't allow to play a day after a night game. Geo must be pretty far in Lou's doghouse.

Yep. Hill cost us that game. Had Geo played Cubs might have won.

Nice approach at the plate for the Cubs. :(