PackLandVA

Fielder didn't start for Milwaukee today either... :-k DeRosa didn't start tonight, either. Would Hendry actually trade his own player for his own player??? How would that affect the 25/40 man roster??

Possiblr due to disappointment over some "friends" being traded???? ok, now you're reaching! :) Okay....it was a reach!! :lol:

Possiblr due to disappointment over some "friends" being traded????

If they get Dunn, who plays RF. Soriano? Dunn would be brutal-er in RF than he is in LF. Also, maybe Hendry held up on a trade for Dunn until tonight so Dunn got to play against Milwaukee. Dunn had a decent series and helped the Reds win 3 of 4. Probably not.

Stone regularly kisses Kenny Williams ass and brilliance (and the Sox organization as a whole) on the Sox radio flagship. He DOES hold punches whe it comes to the Southsiders and routinely bashes the Cubs. Can't tell you how many times he mentions the greatness of Kenny and the fact the Sox have put together three winning seasons in a row, "something that hasn't happened on the Northside in a really long time". Stone's shtick is tiresome and boring. He was better when he didn't have an axe to grind.

Isn't this exactly how the Yanks announced the Clemens signing? or flashed it on the scoreboard during a game and all that was on TV? Yeah they actually flew Clemens to New York, signed the deal, and then waited until the game where Clemens spoke to the crowd. There's no question the deal was done some time beforehand. I mean these are ridiculous comments. Sullivan is a waste of time. I'm surprised Len didn't scream wildly in to the mic when Jim announced the trade. Kinda like that Yankee announcer chick who embarrassed herself nationally!!

` Steve Stone's a idiot. Although most would agree he has a pretty good knowledge of baseball and the Cubs (though like most prognosticators, he benefits from 20/20 hindsight). Listening to Stone several times a week on the radio, one thing is clear in my opinion: He seems to have a bit of an axe to grind with the Cubs. He is not very generous with positive comments about the organizatin and looks to take shots at them when possible, especially when he's on the Sox flagship. For him to speak highly (or at least not negatively) of the trade makes me think it's not as bad as many on this board think and may actually be a good trade.

For what it's worth, Steve Stone was on the local radio station (the Score) and thought it was a pretty good trade and the Cubs "really didn't give up much" for a veteran who's no worse than what they had and has the potetial to be very good for both the pitching staff and offense.

I'm pretty indifferent about the trade, I just think it's moronic to say they gave up nothing based on the fact he's a minor league reliever. This narrow minded BS about the value of a minor league reliever is ironic given that he was the main piece of that trade they are defending. Hell, if you want to make Kendall seem more appealing it would be wise to state the positives about Blevins rather than the negatives. As far as Blevins, I see a pitcher that has made drastic changes in his delievery, regained 2 potential avg. to plus pitches and has the potential of the lefty out of then pen who has the ceiling of middle relief. As far as Kendall, I think he'll have a good chance hit .270/.340 be a good teammate and a potential leader while being a defensive liability. Whether that makes me sound like I'm for it or against it, hell use your judgement. It's a likely minimal trade in the long and short-term both in a positive and negative way, some like to make dramatics part of the discussion rather than facts. You must be confusing me with some other posters. In none of my comments did I say we gave up "nothing". I don't know much about Blevins other then he has some potential like so many other players in the Minors. But I didn't realize he was such a prized youngster. What I did say is: Much ado about nothing.

Kinda like Wellmeyer a few years ago. Or "can't miss" Juan Cruz. Or a whole host of other possibilities that are "something" in the minors but never amount to anything in the majors. Minor leaguers are almost always gonna be an unknown. Hopefully this works in the Cubs favor. But it's not like Blevins was one of the Cubs top prospects for crying out loud. He's had a very good first half in A and AA ball. Or Marshall, Hill, Zambrano, Marmol, etc. when they were in the farm system. Kendall is an unknown at this point, no one knows if he's going to turn it around, I'll repeat what I've said that Perry has worked with Kendall in the past and hopefully it is a somewhat easy correctable mechanical flaw rather than a slower bat. Sure, Blevins doesn't make everyone wet their pants in BA's handbook when he's not listed but he has good stuff and been productive, which gives him value espec. from the left side. If he maintains production throughout the year and stays healthy, he'll be in BA's handbook. I find it ironic that some say that the Cubs got Kendall for nothing, what does that say about Kendall's value? Or like Sisco. Haggerty, Johnson, Beltran, etc., etc., etc. For every star (or even solid MLBer) there's hundreds that never make it but HAD potential. He's a low level pitcher with an unspectacular history until the first half of this season. I reserve judgment. Can't can't be worse than what they've had the last month and he could actually be better.

Preach it, St. Louis!!

We won't be able to take on additional salary now that we've got JASON KENDALL! Not that we'd need to take on additional salary, because now we've got JASON KENDALL! The most I've heard we're taking on is around $3.5 million. The A's and Pirates are paying the rest. Judging from McDonough's comments, I don't think that will hamstring us. Why did the Pirates trade Kendall to the A's and in particular why did the Pirates take on so much of Kendall's salary for so many years? Because they are constantly making CRAPPY trades!!!!!!

Kinda like Wellmeyer a few years ago. Or "can't miss" Juan Cruz. Or a whole host of other possibilities that are "something" in the minors but never amount to anything in the majors. Minor leaguers are almost always gonna be an unknown. Hopefully this works in the Cubs favor. But it's not like Blevins was one of the Cubs top prospects for crying out loud. He's had a very good first half in A and AA ball.

I was gonna bring this exact thing up. I reserve judgment on the deal until Kendall plays a little. Don't know much about Blevins, but didn't really read a whole lot about him on this board in the past. From this thread, I'd have guessed he was one of out top prospects. They don't need "great" production from the C spot, just better than what they had. And there's really no reason they can't keep Soto over Hill, although Hill is a lefty. But he wouldn't be the starter against righties anyway. I read this whole thread and it seems 'much ado about nothing' so far.

I would like to see runs scored due to errors by pitchers not considered "unearned". At least not for the pitcher that made the error.

For what it's worth, Izturis' career batting average against Houston is better than any other team in the National League - .348 BA with a .384 OBP. Guess Lou was playing the numbers. =D>

Yes. With a big lead, I think pitchers in general are more likely to go after hitters, throw strikes, not nibble. With men on base, the pitcher is less likely to be concerned about a run or two scoring as opposed to getting outs. Example A: Cubs up 8-1 in the 7th inning. Opposing team has men on 2nd and 3rd with one out. Pitcher not really concerned about the men on base as he is about the hitter. Any type of out works, regardless of a run scoring or not. Play for outs in hopes of not giving up a big inning. Example B: Cubs up 2-1 in the 7th inning. Opposing team has men on 2nd and 3rd with one out. Pitcher may pitch around the batter setting up DP, look for a K, etc. Pitcher concentrating on not allowing a run to score. I think giving up a run or two in example A (which will increase the pitcher's ERA) is far less important than giving up a run or two in exampe B. Both have the same effect on an ERA, but one scenario has a much greater impact on the game.

Well maybe "ERA" isn't the correct term. Basically a stat that shows the # of runners inherited a reliever allows to score. I guess instead of "ERA", it could be a "% Inherited Runners Scored". Of course, then there's the scenario of allowing runners not to score, but rather, allowing them to move up a base and being in better scoring position for the next pitcher.

I fixed it: Inherited Runner ERA

I don't know if these types of statistics are kept or not, but I'd like to see them discussed more often: Inherited Runners ERA - for relievers "1-out" Saves, "2-out" Saves....all the way to "2-Inning" Saves - saves can be such a 'fraud' statistic "Saves when leading by 1, 2 or 3 Runs" ERA for Starters when team is leading by 5+ runs - I would think sometimes a starter would pitch more freely in game when his team has a big lead. Any comments or other stats not kept you'd like to see?

While one can never really be certain from one year to th next if the window of opportunity is opening or closing, I believe the Cubs better days are in front of them. Their impact players (Soriano, Lee, Ramirez) are all in the prime of their careers. They have a pretty decent rotation that has plenty of upside in Hill and Marshall. And they have some good youth in Pie, Therot, Pagan and Fontenot. If the Cubs believe they can and will re-sign Zambrano, then I would not be that upset if "significant" move(s) were NOT made by July 31. While they've been playing well of late, I don't want them "breaking the bank" because the might get to 87-89 wins and have a shot in the playoffs. That's the impetuous line of thinking the Cubs are so famous for doing in the past (remember Matt Karchner and his impact). I think this team (even in its current state) can be better next year than this year. I'd rather the Cubs stand pat as opposed to making some desperation move that might pay off this year but come back to haunt them in the future.

Barring a trade there isn't a starting spot available. That ship has sailed. A different bullpen role, maybe. Barring a trade, or injury, and all things considered, an injury is a relatively good bet. I still fear Dempster could become the go to guy if/when Marshall goes down. Any possibilty the Cubs trade Dempster to a team that would want to convert him to a starter by the start of next year?

I would rather his arm/shoulder get a nice little vacation. I would also like to him to get a chip on his shoulder by not being voted in or picked by the manager. Big Z - Show the league you're one of the best starters in the game and dominate the entire second half!!

Does anyone else think he has a herky-jerk delivery? He can throw the ball hard with movement and has a great off-speed pitch. But he doesn't look very fluid.

Didn't like the arm/hand waggle at the end of the game today. But I loved the results. He should have had 6 up, 6 down in his two innings of work. The kid shows great promise! http://timesfour.com/x4graemlins/icon_headbanger.gif