vance_the_cubs_fan

Isn't Seirra like 90 years old?

Prior seems extremely level headed. I'm glad he's a Cub.

If the Red Sox want to give him away for Greenberg or Wellemeyer, sure. If they want much more, no.

I'm hoping Hendry finds no takers for Walker and that he's our number two hitter.

Dierker was run out of town for consistently getting into the playoffs and getting knocked out by ATL. You know 4 division titles in 5 years with the Astros. Williams replaced Dierker and then was fired. He was replaced by Garner. Dierker was fired at for a reason! Then Williams came in and turned the whole thing around! Why not then just hire Williams, he did something Dierker could not do? Williams was then fired the next season and replaced by Garner and the same thing happened for the Astros. They had the talent Garner and Williams proved it. Dierker was not winning with the talent that is the reason he was fired. See my above post. Dierker was far better than Williams and he only had one losing season. I don't see how you can assert Dierker wasn't winning. Do you bother to check these things before you make up stuff?

Dierker wasn't replaced with Garner. Dierker managed Houston for five seasons, posting the following winning percentages: 519, 630, 599, 444, 574) He had over 90 wins in 3 of his five seasons and led his team to the playoffs in 4 of the 5. That's pretty damn impressive. He was let go, and replaced with Jimy Williams because the Astros felt he couldn't take the team to the next level. (The Astros were ousted in the first round every year in the playoffs.) I feel this move was about the worst thing the Astros could have done. It shows that they have no understanding of the randomness that is the playoffs. They also had to replace Dierker with Jimy Williams who was simply a horrible manager. It was Williams that Garner replaced. Dierker's record, as short as it is, is just as impressive, if not more so than Dusty's.

I've stated numerous times the list of managers I would take right now. You want opinions on who the next manager should be? Here you are. 1. Fredi Gonzalez- 3b coach Atlanta Braves. He's paid his dues as a minor league manager and as a major league coach. He's cut his teeth in the best organization in baseball over the last 15 years. He'd be an excellent choice. Of course he doesn't have any major league wins, but all managers have to get their start somewhere. It's impossible to pry away Cox, so do the next best thing and get someone who's learned from him and is likely to follow in his methods and thought. 2. Dave Johnsons- You like Dusty's record...you should like Johnson's more. Dusty's winning percentage is 537. Johnson holds a 564. Only Cox is higher among people not in the grave. More on Johnson: He's won a World Series, which is something Baker hasn't. In 14 seasons as a manager, he's had only three seasons under 500. Dusty has four seasons under 500 in 13 seasons. Johnson has managed four teams to a 600 season or higher, Dusty only once (though another team did finishe with a 599 %). Johnson had four more teams finish above 550, making a total of 8 out of 14 seasons, meaning he managed a 90-win team in eight of the 14 seasons he's managed. Dusty has done that only five times. If Davey could be lured back into managing, and I think if offered a contract similar to Baker's, he could be. He'd be an outstanding choice. Others I'd take over Baker: 3. Larry Dierker 4. Ned Yost

No, Murton didn't. Murton didn't begin to get everyday time until 9/12. From Septemeber 12- end of the season, Murton played every game, but it wasn't until then that Dusty gave him every day playing status. Also, while Murton did begin to get a little more time around the 29th of August, Murton's playing time likely had more to do with that was the date Hollandsworth was traded rather than any liking of Murton or change in Dusty's philosophy. Once one of his toys was removed, he had fewer options to choose over Murton. But don't think that suddenly after that losing streak that Dusty changed his colors; he didn't. In fact from 8/31-9/11, there were eleven games. Murton played in six of them, but in one only recieved one at bat. There was a stretch of three games in which he did not play at all. So in truth, it wasn't until September 12 that Murton became an everyday player. By that time, Dusty had little choice. I'm not sure how you arrive at three-fourths. Must be the new math. From 8/29 until he was hurt on 9/10, the Cubs played twelve games. Cedeno played in 6 of those. 6/12. I used my seventh grade math skills and reduced that fraction to 2/4, not 3/4. In fact it's just as close to 1/4 as it is 3/4. So, Cedeno played in 1/2 the games. But, a closer look reveals in one game he recieved zero PA. So, that really isn't much to Baker's credit either. Even when it was obvious to the world that the Cubs were out of contention, he didn't give much time to the players that are likely part of the future...instead giving AB's to Macias and Perez among others. Nothing about Dusty's use of Murton or Cedeno suggest he has any intention of playing rookies. What is more appalling about Murton's lack of playing time is that he was our best hitting outfielder last year and should have played every day since his call-up.

Tim Kurkijan was on Charlie Steiner's "The Beat" on XM 175 today. During the discussion, the McGwire/HOF issue was bandied about. Kurkijan said that unless more information comes out, he would vote for McGwire, but based on his discussions with other writers, he guesses McGwire will not be elected on the first ballot, if ever.

Sosa was treated unfairly. So was Palmeiro. The entire Congressional hearing was a farce. It was political propoganda. Why do you pick and choose players to question? Was it because of Canseco's book? Yeah, there's a credible source, with no agenda. Yeah right. Well everyone attacked Canseco's credibility (myself included), it seems with Palmeiro, not only was he right, but he even named the right steroid in his book. While there are many reasons to question Canseco's motives, it looks as if, at least in Palmerio's case, that he wasn't just blowing smoke.

I've heard of clutch hitting, just like I've heard ghost stories. I just don't think there's any proof that either exist.

It is. If Mark says "The Cubs disrespected me; I hate Hendry and Dusty; I want out.", or something approaching that, then flame away. I'll join you. If Prior says that, I guess it's time to revive a deal for Abreu.

Excellent article by Mr. Miles.

On face value, I say no to this deal. I like Williams and Walker is a better hitter than Lugo. On the other hand, if Hendry is dead set on trading Walker, then I have to look at it as Williams for Lugo. A little pricey, but I could live with that. I'd rather do this deal than to end up watching Hendry trade Walker for someone's crap prospects, and then witness a Cedeno/Neifi infield in 2006. So, while I'm really opposed to this trade, given Hendry one track focus to trade Walker, at least we'd get a decent player in return who we could offer arbitration to and get some additional draft picks for after he leaves.

It's much easier to win with Barry Bonds in the line-up.

Here is my list that I would want as the next Cubs manager. 1. Fredi Gonzalez 2. Davey Johnson 3. Ned Yost 4. Larry Dierker

Astros deny they have asked Bagwell to retire. Here's a quote from his agent.

No I don't. In the Tejada deal, Hendry was asking for Bedard if he traded Prior. That supposedly was part of the hold up. It could be that Hendry didn't feel that Phily had or would include a pitcher comparable to Bedard back if he dealt Prior.

While I'm not in favor of trading Prior, if the Phillies had been willing to toss back a Gavin Floyd with him, I would have thought very hard about it.

From Tampa's perspective, can they get more in return if they do a deal now, or is it better for them to wait until Spring Training, or is it better to wait until the July trading deadline? I think it depends. Right now, Lugo is coming off a career year. If his numbers dip, he might not be worth as much. Also, later in the season, at the deadline for instance, you may have more suitors, but you could have fewer. Also, are teams willing to pay more for a player for an entire season than they would for one they will only have under their control for a couple of months. In the Cubs case, how much they will pay for Lugo in July will depend greatly on the play of Cedeno. Right now, the uncertainty in the middle infield might make Lugo more attractive than he will be in July. The same case could be said in Boston. If their team is struggling in July, they may be willing to part with Marte. On the other hand, if they are in first without Lugo, they may see him as only a complimentary part and not willing to pay nearly as much to acquire him. It's a gamble either way. Also...consider the Rays don't want to deal for Welly, Marmol, and Dopirak now. Dopirak bounces back and puts up numbers in West Tenn like he did in Lansing. In that scenario, the Cubs may be more reluctant to deal him and the Rays end up settling for a lesser prospect. These are the risks. So to answer your question, I think it depends on way too many factors to simply answer yes or no.

I'm just the opposite. I prefer the road grays to the blue top. I absolutely abhor the blue jersey with the home pinstripe pants. I think only the pinstripes should be worn at home.

I think a closer read of the article indicates that it isn't that Huff is not happy in Tampa, but he's tired of hearing his name in trade rumors. He was to know if he's going to be traded or not, and if he's going to be traded, he wants them to hurry the hell up and do it.

Nay. I think we have enough divisions as well. It fits fine in social.

I don't have a link, but I heard it on XM 175 during my lunch break.

He's still under Cubs control for three years, so I guess they can take their shot at him after 2008.