CuseCubFan69

I like Rameriz and I'm happy he's on the team.

I like the flexability of this team expect for a couple of things. A good backup CF but if Soriano can do the job and Jones/Theriot can back him up I'm fine with it. And #2 a righty off the bench with a little spank. I'm really not worried about what Lou says about who's playing where because as he said in another thread production plays. I would also like to point out something about Murton. I haven't seen the numbers but he seems to have a Lou like Career going for him and IMO that might be to his benefit.

I understand that Dusty has effected us all in that regard but I think it's best that Lou uses all his experience's in the game....from his beginning to what he has learned lately. IMO, Dusty never could change and just was a stubburn man. IMO, everytime somebody brought up something new Dusty seemed to think it was a challenge to his knowledge of the game instead of listening and processing the information to his advantage. Maybe it's me but Lou has seemed to learn about the game as he goes along, at least that's what I'm hoping for.

There's a big difference between a manager who wants something and a manager who will enforce something. And a GM who cares about walks. I'm hoping Lou can help him see the light regarding that. I think Hendry repects him and hopefully this will be the start of a beautiful friendship.

I'm sure I have opinions that are stupid. People would be right to call me out on them. That said, I can defend most of my opinions. I don't get people that care more about effort than winning when it comes to a sporting event. I don't see a valid defense for that line of thinking; that there's somehow honor in being bad if you tried really hard. IMO they are thinking that effort goes with winning and not inspite of.

Welcome to the forum! I'm sure they'll have different types to match the different wants/needs of the buying public. These things always go in phases anyways.

not really relevant to this conversation, but I do imagine Cubs hitters walking a LOT more this year with the new hitting coach and with Dusty being gone. I think just getting the opposing pitchers to throw more pitches is the key and walks are just a byproduct of that. I'd put it the opposite. Well, not exactly. IMO, walks and getting the pitchers to throw more pitches are a byproduct of waiting for a pitch you can hit hard somewhere. Making contact with anything in the strike zone just for the sake of making contact (outside of some situations, obviously, like a close two strike pitch) is the one thing they need to stay totally away from. If they go up there with the approach that before 2 strikes, they're only going to swing if they get a pitch to hit, I think the rest will come. I just hope to see a lot less swinging early in the count this year. We've been letting the opposing pitcher off the hook way too easily, especially since 2003. What's to stop a pitcher from getting strike 1 and 2 then if you have the proverbial bat on the shoulder? I think each batter has to have a plan when they go up there and sometimes circumstances dictate what they have to do. Knowing your zones and your pitches you can drive help immensely and obviously getting into a hitters count increases that and I agree that it would make the hitters more successful if they can do that. I like Murtons approach to hitting but it doesn't work for everybody and I don't think it could work for Soriano or Jones because of the habits they already have which are very hard to break. Being selective/aggresive is a very hard thing to to learn. If a pitcher can reliably throw strikes that you can't hit well, you're generally in trouble no matter your approach at the plate True but the better your approach the better your chances are for success.

Thanks, Todd. Todd Walker is the gift that just keeps on giving. Who did the Cubs get for him again?

I think he was on that diet when he was a Cub. zing! I think Zingers were a Dolly Madison product. They still are! Ron I loved those things. Probably haven't had one since high school though. Yellow or chocolate?

I think he was on that diet when he was a Cub. zing! I think Zingers were a Dolly Madison product. They still are! Ron

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie. It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard. having izturis up will still be worth not trtying to make an out. the only player who is not working with the percentages would abe a very bad hitting pitcher. Again...no one is making an out on purpose. yes, they are. hitting the ball weaker than you normally do on purpose is tantamount to sacrificing. and there's a much better chance you'll make an out than score a run. Unless you have an OBP of 500 or better it's pretty much true for everyone.

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie. It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard. having izturis up will still be worth not trtying to make an out. the only player who is not working with the percentages would abe a very bad hitting pitcher. Again...no one is making an out on purpose.

Are you 85% sure of that?

when you could be trying to score enough runs to win instead of playing for extras, in which your chances could be worse, why not attempt to utilize the scoring chance by scoring 2 runs instead of one? unless the object of the game is to simply get a tie. It depends on who's up. If you have Theriot up in the situation we have said and Izturis up next, it's what I would do. Again, it's not giving up an out and you're still hitting the ball hard.

Heh heh....I love all those big lugs!

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder. in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard. Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post. there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right? micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total. if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do? You have a bigger spot to shoot for. You're looking upper/center and not just the center and hitters work on these things, ones like Theriot do. how is the upper center part of the ball bigger than just the center of the ball? it seems to me that asking your hitters to hit the ball ineffectively hamstrings them in game situations. You don't see how the whole upper and center part of the ball is bigger than just the center? all i know is that it's better, and easier, and more effective to try to hit the entire ball than a specific slice of it. if you can hit whatever part of the ball you want to, and can seemingly hit the ball in whatever direction required, surely, the hitter is too skilled to be allowed to offer themself up. try to drive the ball in every situation, i didn't say take an uppercut swing and trty to hit a home run, hit the ball hard and good things will happen. if you have a team full of people hitting the ball hard, there's no reason to waste outs. If the runner scores late in the game who's wasting an out?

I honestly thought the post said "Wood falls off mound again". I'd love to see Kerry do well.

I have a magic 8 ball and it said ask again later. I think what you wrote will be close to what they settle for. eidt..the average being 14.5 or what they settle for in 2007? I think the average of the extension will be 14.5 per year. With the first year being 13 and the last year being 16 based on a four year extension. I hope you're right. I think the average will be around 16.8. And where the heck were you when I was battling all these guys on how good the Big East was!

My guess is that the Cubs planned on settling for about 12.5, so they didn't want to offer that and then have to work on a new mid-point that was higher than that. They offered 11, they thought Z would offer about 14, and when he offered 15.5 the mid-point of that was simply unacceptable to them. Yeah I could see that but offering 12 or 12.5 in the arby would pretty much have won it hands down for the Cubs and IMO Z is going to get 16 or more anyway after this so why not just give him what he's worth right from the beginning? If I remember correctly, don't both sides put in blind bids so how could the Cubs know if 12.5 would even be a mid-point? But his point is they didn't want to go to the hearing at all. They wanted to settle at a midpoint, but weren't expecting the midpoint to be so high. I see, I'm surprised they didn't think it would be that high.

I have a magic 8 ball and it said ask again later. I think what you wrote will be close to what they settle for. eidt..the average being 14.5 or what they settle for in 2007?

But hasn't Soriano said he doesn't want to be bounced around anymore? I agree that what you just wrote would probably be best for the team right now.

My guess is that the Cubs planned on settling for about 12.5, so they didn't want to offer that and then have to work on a new mid-point that was higher than that. They offered 11, they thought Z would offer about 14, and when he offered 15.5 the mid-point of that was simply unacceptable to them. Yeah I could see that but offering 12 or 12.5 in the arby would pretty much have won it hands down for the Cubs and IMO Z is going to get 16 or more anyway after this so why not just give him what he's worth right from the beginning? If I remember correctly, don't both sides put in blind bids so how could the Cubs know if 12.5 would even be a mid-point?

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder. in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard. Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post. there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right? micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total. if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do? You have a bigger spot to shoot for. You're looking upper/center and not just the center and hitters work on these things, ones like Theriot do. how is the upper center part of the ball bigger than just the center of the ball? it seems to me that asking your hitters to hit the ball ineffectively hamstrings them in game situations. You don't see how the whole upper and center part of the ball is bigger than just the center?

I'm surprised the Cubs didn't go 12 or 12.5 more than anything.

Of course a hit is better and no one would say different. And who's trying to make an out? I talked about making contact is a better option than striking out with a man on third and striking never brings home the guy from 3rd. WP/PB would but no matter what the technique the runner probably scores from that. over the course of a season, you will be more successful trying to hit the ball hard in that situation. if you're down 1 with a runner at third, you have the same chance of knocking the runner in by putting a good swing on the ball then by chopping weakly at it, trying to hit it to an infielder. in addition, you have a much better chance of winning by trying to hit the ball hard. Who's chopping weakly at a ball? I'm talking about hitting the ball sully and not striking out sure, putting a good swing on it is helpful obviously. If I have a Theriot up and there are 1 out and a guy at third and that run is needed, I want him to at least hit the top half of the ball to score the runner, especially if the inf is playing back. Still a good solid swing but not the proverbial girl swing that you mentioned in your post. there's no guarantee that hitting the top half of the ball will produce the run. and if he's trying to hit the top half of the ball, why not just focus on hitting the whole ball and increasing your team's run expectancy? i mean, if he's so good at hitting a ball in a certain place, he must be skilled enough to drive the ball somewhere, right? micromanging like that decreases your overall runs and thusly your win total. if theriot is so good that he can hit the ball wherever he wants to, why put a limit on what he can do? You have a bigger spot to shoot for. You're looking upper/center and not just the center and hitters work on these things, ones like Theriot do.