CUBZ99

Does anybody know what day Sean will pitch in Iowa? I'm taking my son to the game on Sunday, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

He does hit the ball like a man, according to Big Z. :lol:

Good to see those numbers from Moore. If I remember right he was hurt during Spring Training and to start the season. It seems that he had a real slow start, possibly due to injuries. He must have been on fire lately.

Kerry Wood has that Rod Beck quality, where I can picture him giving it every thing he has to get the Cubs to the World Series, whether or not it would re injure his arm. There is no question he has heart.

Not to jinx the Cubs pitching staff, but have Zambrano, Lilly, Marquis or Hill missed any starts this year? (not used to that sort of thing) I'm sure that Gallagher is going to be needed to pick up a start or two for one of the starting five at some point in the season.

Is Hoffpauir a starter in IA? Didn't see him in the lineup either. Nevermind just saw in another thread he is on the 7 day DL.

Fell down trying to catch an infield pop up. I don't think we've heard anything on the injury. strained calf muscle is what Len and Bob said last inning. Trying to catch a pop up? You got to be kidding me. :shock:

What happened to Ward?

Do you consider .281 BA .341 OBP for a SS and .297 BA .370 OBP for a RF, well below average? Perhaps your standards are a bit high?

let me see if I have this right, you don't want to try improving because they're winning even though that improvement might help them win more? just because Ronny and Felix had rough spells doesn't mean they are not better suited for those positions NOW. we're getting no production from SS or CF right NOW, so what's the harm in plugging in a couple of guys who don't have much left to prove at AAA and let them work through their big league struggles? if they fail, we're in the same spot we are in right now (except with much better OF defense) Isn't he simply saying that the Cubs want to win now and don't have time to babysit players that can't perform currently? I have no problem with Lou doing exactly what he said he would do to start the year ---- "play the players who produce".

Thanks! I'm going to see the Iowa Cubs this weekend. Maybe Soto won't have such a big head this time around. After watching him play in Iowa he has been a real tough guy to pull for. (Of course, my kids might have caught him on the wrong day last time, and he may be a wonderful person).

That I agree with. If the Cubs had to get rid of Barrett to keep Zambrano, I am all for getting rid of Barrett.

He's a reliever now? I thought he a guy with ace potential at one point?

Did Bruce mention whether he was as angry as Paul Sullivan about Hendry reporting the trade live on the air? My guess is that he was either told about the trade and kept it quiet ; or didn't take it personal (judging solely on his comments last night).

While that is a unique characteristic of Oakland, then it would be within reason to expect his FB% to be high last year too. However, last year was right inline with his career. He has 104 FBs as opposed to 130 all of last year and right around 150 the previous years. I don't know anywhere that tracks pop fouls, but that'd have to be an awful lot of pop fouls this year over last to account for the disparity. Also, I wonder if those would be counted as infield fly balls (most of the extended foul territory is in the IF and rarely do corner OFs make it all the way past the line to make foul catches). Hes right inline with his career on that stat. Has anyone mentioned that Gerald Perry (Kendall's hitting coach last year), was heavily in favor of the trade. Maybe Perry has already pinpointed something that Kendall is not doing or believes he can easily get Kendall turned around?

http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf Read the first chapter on plausible reasoning. Then get back to me on your unicorn argument. yeah, i'm gonna pass on that. guess i'll take an incomplete on this assignment. Thank you FergieJ31, the whole stupid unicorn bit was getting old.

I understand you are frustrated that they added Kendall - I did want him either and would have preferred to give Soto a shot. I agree that we need another bat, hopefully in RF or at SS. However, I think that your statement implies that they have been lucky rather than good. I think this is unfair and untrue. You don't win as many games as they have since June 1 without playing good baseball. Everyone knows there is a bit of chance involved in all sports, but usually you have to do something well in addition to getting breaks. The Cubs have done plenty of that, IMO. Also, this notion that giving up a minor league middle reliever for a guy one year removed from a solid major league season (at least in terms of OBP) and who will cost only $900k is just disengenious. I have seen many folks - you included, IIRC - rail against Hendry for overvaluing middle relievers and not treating them like the fungible commodities they are. Assuming that is true - and I think it is - its a bit hypocritical for you to now blast him for giving up a AA reliever with one-half of a good season to his credit for Kendall. Now, if you look at it in the larger context - trading Barrett for Kendall - I agree it appears to be a loss. That said, Barrett may have worn out his welcome with the Cubs and the players - we will never know. What we do know is that we have not had many problems without him. I'd also note that Kendall is a rental, and Soto may therefore get his shot next season, or could be used to get something we really need - someone who can play RF or SS and hit. Where is the hell did you get what you posted from my post? I'm not at all frustrated that the Cubs got Kendall for a minor league middle reliever and Bowen. I don't know where you would get that idea from my post. I don't think this trade was bad by any stretch. Since the middle of June the Cubs have gotten good to great pitching from their bullpen, almost no offense outside of Aramis and Soriano, have caught lightning in a bottle from Fontenot and Theriot, and have been fortunate to play teams that stink more than they do. I don't think that is somthing to get overly excited about. In my opinon, they are a slightly better team today than they were yesterday at this time. I hope this is the first move and not the last. Bruce Miles mentioned in his last article on dailyherald.com that Hendry was hinting on another move to be made soon. I believe this. One thing I'll give Hendry is he will usually make a move to improve the team. I can see him upgrading either SS or the OF soon. Actually, I think he was saying that at the time the Cubs DFA'd Bowen earlier in the day, Hendry hinted that another move would be made soon. (Presumably, trading for Kendall).

His two pathetic years came from trying to sidearm and losing 10 mph velocity from it. And his secondary pitches have improved since then. Not valuing young arms (especially lefty arms with good stuff) is a fatal error. Again, I know nothing of Blevins, but young arms are invaluable. Bowen for Kendall is a low risk gamble, but one worth taking, in my opinion. I wouldn't have thrown in any pitcher with promise, though. Hmm...was it weird to quote you with that? I was trying to agree, I guess. The same people that are arguing Blevins is invaluable are the same people that moan and complain that Hendry only sells low. If the Cubs had held onto Blevins and he flamed out, people would be complaining that Hendry should have gotten rid of him when he had a 1.02 and some value in the minors. Lets wait to see how things shake out before we proclaim trading Blevins a fatal error. I'm not proclaiming trading Blevins as a fatal error. I'm claiming that dismissing young pitchers is a fatal error. They're valuable, even if all don't pan out. I agree. That is why it is important for an organization to determine which arms are likely not going to make any contribution to the big league club. All I'm saying is, lets wait to see how things shake out before we determine this trade to be a terrible trade. Bruce was on saying that this is a Gary Hughes driven trade and that Gary scouted Kendall heavily. Maybe Gary Hughes is right and there is something in Kendall that will propel the Cubs to be a better team. We all know that Bowen was nothing special.

His two pathetic years came from trying to sidearm and losing 10 mph velocity from it. And his secondary pitches have improved since then. Not valuing young arms (especially lefty arms with good stuff) is a fatal error. Again, I know nothing of Blevins, but young arms are invaluable. Bowen for Kendall is a low risk gamble, but one worth taking, in my opinion. I wouldn't have thrown in any pitcher with promise, though. Hmm...was it weird to quote you with that? I was trying to agree, I guess. The same people that are arguing Blevins is invaluable are the same people that moan and complain that Hendry only sells low. If the Cubs had held onto Blevins and he flamed out, people would be complaining that Hendry should have gotten rid of him when he had a 1.02 and some value in the minors. Lets wait to see how things shake out before we proclaim trading Blevins a fatal error.

Translation...those morons in Chicago will cheer for any piece of crap in a Cub uniform. Except Jaque Jones, Neifi Perez, Izturis, ...........

Maybe you should wait to see all of the details, as you, yourself admit you don't know how much CASH was coming he Cubs way. If the A's pick up the remainder of Kendall's contract, it is hardly a terrible trade. Blevins may turn out to be a decent player some day, or he may hit a rut in AAA and never make it to the majors. And your statement that Soto would likely produce better than Kendall is based on what? Talk about over valuing minor league numbers. If Kendall can put together a 2nd half in line with his past seasons, the Cubs made a good trade. My entire feeling is based around the fact that its going to be impossible for broken-down shell of his former self Kendall to produce anywhere close to his previous seasons. The Cubs gave up next to nothing to get him. I would rather put my faith in a guy that has produced and put up a .350ish OBP in 2005 and 2006, rather than take my chances with the junk the Cubs have at catcher now. Even if Kendall is terrible it is likely he will outproduce any catcher the Cubs currently have on their roster. Blevins is the only reservation I have about this trade, and until tonight, I have never seen so much love for the guy.

Maybe you should wait to see all of the details, as you, yourself admit you don't know how much CASH was coming he Cubs way. If the A's pick up the remainder of Kendall's contract, it is hardly a terrible trade. Blevins may turn out to be a decent player some day, or he may hit a rut in AAA and never make it to the majors. And your statement that Soto would likely produce better than Kendall is based on what? Talk about over valuing minor league numbers. If Kendall can put together a 2nd half in line with his past seasons, the Cubs made a good trade.

He was just on and stated that Gary Hughes was the driving factor behind the deal. I think he would have pointed out that it was Marshall instead of the reported Bowens, Blevins.

He is clearly misinformed. Yeah, no GM is dumb enough to trade Marshall for Kendall.

Most of the players disliked Barrett. Barrett was a bad defensive catcher, couldn't hit well, and Z nearly killed him. The Cubs have been great since he left. It was a good move. Didn't you know that the intangibles don't matter in baseball? Unless you can point out a specific statistic you, there is no place for it in baseball discussion. :^o