Cubs Playoff Baseball, Kind Of!

EPax has had rough transition to AA (6 for 30) but he has walked 6 times.

bottom of 5th, Jaxx 2 Mudcats 0 Pinto pitching a 2 hit shutout

Adam's batting 3rd; unfortunately he's 0-3 thru the 5th inning. Shalom

JAXX UP 2-0, top of the 7th, E-Pat 3 for 4 1 2B, 2 DP's turned Jose Reyes 2 for 3 1 2b, 1 runner caught stealing Jaxx 10 runners LOB Pinto 6 IP, 3 hits, 1 BB, 5 K's

Jaxx Win!!! (lead series 1-0) 3-0 Save Andy Shipman, Strikes out the last batter with runners at 2nd and 3rd.

CUBS WIN!! IN DUSTY WE TRUSTY!!! That is the REAL Cubs, of course.......

Nice win by WT today. Hopefully Nolasco will keep the boys on a roll tommrrow. If him and Pinto can get past AAA they will provide us with anther great combo of young studs hopefully W/O the arm problems.

interesting scout.com blurb on d.couthers...basically blaming anxiety problems and the inability to overcome them at this time. --- "My decision really had nothing to do with the Cubs or with being traded," Crouthers added. "It just got to the point where I didn't feel like I could compete. I kept having these same issues when I was throwing and decided the best thing would be to step down and take another route." Since retiring, Crouthers has re-enrolled at Southern Illinois-Edwardsville, where he pitched in college. His major is Psychology. Crouthers now plays softball with friends each Thursday and has taken on a part-time role with the university's baseball program under head coach Gary Collins. ..."It's still in the back of my head that maybe I'll overcome these problems and play ball again," he said. "I'd hope someone might give me a chance. At the time, the Cubs said I had an open invite to come back. I still have an agent and I hope the time would come where teams are still interested in me and would give me a private tryout."

What's happening with the Orioles sending us a replacement for Crouthers? Get on with it!

orioles are gonna trade brian roberts for adam dunn and then sending him to the cubs. OMG! ADAM DUNN! david c. for adam dunn...fair enough, though the club really could use another pitcher.

If the Jaxx won both halves of the season, shouldn't they get to play themselves in the playoffs?

anyone see E-Pat being called up to the big squad sometime next year a'la Murton?

Did anyone hear the radio call of the last out? It had all the emotion of a game 7...without any of the meaning to me. We deserve better...on so many levels.

"anyone see E-Pat being called up to the big squad sometime next year a'la Murton?" If by ala Murton you mean being called up late in the season to sit on the bench with Dusty and learn from uninspired veterans how to play out the string... then yeah, there's a good chance that'll happen.

Retro: "anyone see E-Pat being called up to the big squad sometime next year a'la Murton?" Can you hear now the complaints of him not getting playing time ala Dubois??

Can you hear now the complaints of him not getting playing time ala Dubois?? And if E-Pat continues to perform like he has this year, the compaints would probably be valid.

Can you hear now the complaints of him not getting playing time ala Dubois?? A la Dubois and Hollandsworth is what you meant, Manny, unless you're just trying to revise history and misrepresent prior positions. That debate was always about two players. And if E-Pat continues to perform like he has this year, the compaints would probably be valid. The complaints would be even more valid, and the situation closer to analogous, if we played Nick Punto over Eric Patterson.

So what's more annoying...people endlessly complaining on the same subject or people endlessly complaining about the complaining? Tough call.....

The complaints would be even more valid, and the situation closer to analogous, if we played Nick Punto over Eric Patterson. I would think it would be something more analogous to playing Macias over Eric Patterson.

jest Are write-ins allowed? If so, I'll vote for people complaining about the people endlessly complaining about the endless complaining. /jest

D'oh. For five blissful minutes, I forgot Macias existed.

"Can you hear now the complaints of him not getting playing time ala Dubois??" I can hear the sound of slapping! A la my hand to your face...

"That debate was always about two players." But the bottom line is that Dubois had a hole in his swing a mile wide, and couldn't play a lick of defense. He needed more time in the minors, not to be rushed here just cuz of decent statistics. Minor league statistics are so grossly overrated. Look at a guy's swing. Look at his fundamentals. Look at his skills. That's a required indicator to evaluate success. Anyone who looked at Dubois from that perspective had to know he was not ready for the major leagues. He was still going to strike out at least 1/3 of his ABs and had very little command of the strike zone. If we rush the next big thing up in the same manner, the results are likely to be the same.

That's ironic, X, given that only yesterday you tried to use minor league numbers against Ronny Cedeno.

Rob G.: "So what's more annoying...people endlessly complaining on the same subject or people endlessly complaining about the complaining?" I say people complaing on the same subject. If they didn't constantly complain, then people wouldn't complain about the complaing and we can actually talk real baseball.

Big John Stud: "I can hear the sound of slapping! A la my hand to your face..." Very classy. Good to see TCR letting posts like this happen again. Shame....

I have no interest in debating Jason Dubois's inrtinsic merits and flaws. I merely wanted to point out that the pro-Dubois camp was just as much, if not more so, an anti-Hollandsworth-as-starter camp. Some on this board were (and still are) eager to portray some others as thinking Dubois was going to have a huge breakout year. That was not the case. We knew Dubois was going to carry his share of Ks, but we also knew he'd hit a lot of balls hard, in contrast to Todd Hollandsworth, who we knew was going to, well... Dub: 239/289/472, 12 2B, 7 HR, in 149 PA Hol: 254/308/388, 17 2B, 5 HR, in 286 PA

"That's ironic, X, given that only yesterday you tried to use minor league numbers against Ronny Cedeno." Clarification then...failure at the minor leagues is a near sure sign of failure at the big league level. Find me a guy who can't hit in A ball, I'll show you a guy who can't hit in the major leagues. However, the converse is not true. Just cuz you can hit in the FSL, doesn't mean you have a clue in the bigs. Are we arguing semantics here, or do you really think that Dubois is a good hitter with no major swing flaws, and that his minor league performance was conclusive that he was a 1.000+OPS guy? Are you seriously telling me that you believe a guy who posts good minor league numbers has major league hitting skills just cuz he has minor league numbers, and that there are not significant skills that one can not have and still be a success in the minors, but must have to succeed in the majors? or are you just arguing semantics for the fun of it?

What are the chances of the Cubs havin a major league outfield (hitting/defense) next year? The cut and paste job this year (Holly, Dooby, Mecias, Hariston,Lawton) should make Hendry get legitamate players(Damon, Dunn, Giles). Like I said before Beernutz should be the teams third best outfielder not far and away their best outfielder. Oh yeah, get a bullpen and a few starters.

"I have no interest in debating Jason Dubois's inrtinsic merits and flaws. I merely wanted to point out that the pro-Dubois camp was just as much, if not more so, an anti-Hollandsworth-as-starter camp. Some on this board were (and still are) eager to portray some others as thinking Dubois was going to have a huge breakout year. That was not the case. We knew Dubois was going to carry his share of Ks, but we also knew he'd hit a lot of balls hard, in contrast to Todd Hollandsworth, who we knew was going to, well..." Well, I can't speak for what was going on here - since I wasn't here until recently. I can talk about where I used to be. There was a large camp there who were convinced that Dubois was a lock for ROY, a .300+ hitter with 30 HRs, and a must start, despite his many flaws. I'll agree with those who say Hollandsworth has no business starting (he hasn't been a good starter since his rookie year. He has never had 150 starts in a season. He has only once had back to back 100 game seasons (his rookie and second years) etc. I'll also agree wholeheartedly that Jason Dubois had no business in the majors this year. He strikes out way too much, can not hit lefties to save his life, is a terrible defensive OF and has insufficient plate discipline. It is shameful that these were our options.

X: "It is shameful that these were our options." So True......

to no surprise i'd have to say the complaining about the complaining. I'd like to think those who continue to complain about the same things (Dusty's lineups, Neifi, Macias, rookies being overlooked, etc, etc) continue to do so, cause the situation keeps happening and they would very much like for that to stop. A lot of it is just venting. Of course that's not always the case, some folks just hate Dusty and will blame him if the sun didn't rise tomorrow or if some kid in A-ball got released (of course since Dusty recently took credit for the Jaxx success, I suppose he's can now be held accountable for the developments of the Boise Hawks) On the other hand, those complaining about the complaining, seems like they just feel the need to address EVERY comment made by folks and can't just leave things alone. It seems like it would be simpler to just not address a topic than to berate somone over having an opinion about who plays that day or whatever the flavor of the day is. For example: Poster #1: Why is Neifi playing today and Ronny sitting? Poster #2: Do we have to hear this every time Neifi gets a start and Ronny sits? Now if Poster #2, had an actual response to Poster #1, it doesn't bother me. such as, Neifi's been hot, look at his post-ASB #'s or he's hit well off this pitcher or something more substanstial than "Why did you type those words?", I'd be fine with it (well I'm fine with it anyway, but that's another story). Also it seems like Poster #2 in the above example is just stooping to the level that is troubling them in the first place. Poster #1 keeps repeating themselves on the same topic, so what does Poster #2 do, keeps repeating himself. Has this strategy ever worked in the history of mankind? I want to solve something, so I do the same thing that is the source of the problem. Seems like there is a better way, like, as you say, actually discussing real baseball, or just ignoring it. If no one comments on someone else's comments, they tend to die pretty quick. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from discussing anything, but I am trying to encourage actual discussion. And I will do what I just advocated above and ignore those comments when I come across them. [Rant over]

Actually, if you look at minor league, and even college statistics closely, and take into account age of the players and whether it is a pitcher's league (FSL in high A and the Southern League in AA) or a hitter's league (PCL AAA or Texas League for AA), and look at the strike out to walk ratio, then they those stats do give you a pretty good projection on how a player will perform offensively in the majors. Dubois's high strike out and low walk rate was a big red flag that he would have problems in the majors (as did Corey Patterson's high strike out and low walk rate indicated that he would not work out in majors). I guess Dusty does not like the way Murton plays defense as he is using Hairston in left as a defensive substitute and earlier this season said Hairston could not play left. Have any of you seen Murton play live? How does he react to fly balls and what kind of ground does he cover? Contra Dusty bashing, in the 2003 Baseball Prospectus, the article on the SF Giants extolled Dusty's ability to get veteran players to play at the high range of their performance levels, often reaching new peaks. Despite the disappointments in this year, especially in the pitching staff, there seems to be some evidence of this effect in the play of Derrek Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, Burnitz, Walker, and, of course, Neifi! All these guys are above or near their previous career highs set in their pre-Dusty careers. Even Garcippara is coming on like gangbusters. So does this Dusty magic balance out the bad Dusty who starts Corey and Neifi 1&2 for month in the line-up and believes that the best use of rookie position players is as cushions on the bench? I have an open mind and look forward to reading the arguements.

I'm watching the D'backs-Pirates game, and Mike Gonzalez has filthy stuff. He's throwing 93-94 with a nasty breaking ball. Made Luis Gonzalez look terrible on a curve, and Shawn Greeen had trouble catching up with his heater. If Corey Patterson is traded to Pittsburgh (one of the two most-likely destinations for C-Pat, the other being Colorado, IMHO), I would hope Jim Hendry can get the Pirates to include Mike Gonzalez as part of the deal, even if it means the Cubs have to give up Rich Hill or Michael Wuertz to make it happen. Corey Patterson and Rich Hill or Michael Wuertz for Rob Mackowiak and Mike Gonzalez would be a good conversation starter.

If he could get Mike gonzalez just for Korey, he should do it.

I don't have the 2003 BP. What did they mean by "veteran"--did they mean players with X years or more or players who are over age X? The reason I ask is that I don't think many Cubs would necessarily qualify. Derrek is 29, Aramis is 27, and Barrett is 28 (baseball ages)--I'd have a hard time crediting anybody else with their successes, as they're in their peak years, especially Aramis. I'd bet that article referenced guys like Jeff Kent who were more-or-less well into their 30s around the time of publication. The player who does seem like he'd benefit is Burnitz, whose EQA is hovering on the low end of where he's been the past five years.

#35 of 36: By Rob G. (September 8, 2005 01:08 PM) If he could get Mike gonzalez just for Korey, he should do it. ---- ROB G: Absolutely. I just don't think the Pirates would give up Gonzalez unless the Cubs include a young pitcher with upside who can pitch out of the bullpen (like Rich Hill or Michael Wuertz), and I don't think Littlefield would acquire C-Pat unless Hendry takes back a player with similar MLB service time as Corey's, and (given the choice) I would much rather have Rob Mackowiak than Jack Wilson (the other likely possibility).

X, failure at the minor leagues is a near sure sign of failure at the big league level. Find me a guy who can't hit in A ball, I'll show you a guy who can't hit in the major leagues. High A 4.36 ERA Low A 4.66 ERA Total A 4.64 ERA Rookie League 7.92 ERA He was then taken in the Rule 5 draft. His name is Johan Santana. Carlos Beltran is a career .246/.327/.394 hitter in Class A. Carlos Zambrano's career ERA in Class A is over 4.00. Of course, these aren't the norm. In fact a lot of Major League stars have bad numbers in Class A, but turned it on at the AA and/or AAA level. To say that he didn't have success almost three years ago in Class A proves he won't have success in the miajors is unwarranted when you consider he hit well over .300 in AAA for half a season and decent in AA the year before. Personally, I think his upside is a good glove hollow .280 batting average player. That's not much different than Neifi Perez.

it took another 3 years for santana to get it together...and its minnisota doing things like that that makes stuff like losing hagarty/sisco possible these days. given the fact the cubs are one of 6-8 teams outta 30 that can actually field a 100m team, i find it very hard to complain about teams doing this...and hey, it may interrupt some kids careers, but theyre getting 10x the money for the oportunity and unless they fail huge they got a nice shot of finding that money for a few more years. its a new weird era of baseball that goes beyond just the roids issue.

Count me as 100% in favor of a K-Patt for Mike Gonzalez trade, straight up. I would also be very much in favor of a K-Patt/Rich Hill for Gonzalez and Rob Mackowiak trade. We need a bench utility guy that can play some OF and has pop from the RH side of the plate, Mackowiak would fill that role nicely. If they gave a pinch hitting job to Ben Grieve for the corresponding LH bat, and stuck with Hairston and Neifi for the infield utility jobs, that would be a very nice bench for 2006: Grieve, Mackowiak, Hairston, Perez, Blanco. If the Cubs get smart and go back to 11-man pitching staffs, I could even live with Gremlin as the 25th man if the rest of the bench were as strong as above. I am figuring your starting middle infield for 2006 will be Rafael Furcal and Ronny Cedeno, and I see Brian Giles as a lock for a Cub acquistion in RF. Let Murton and Pie compete for one OF spot, and all the Cubs need is to sign one more free agent (Damon?) or make a trade using our young talent, and we're almost done. Except we need a quality bullpen guy like BJ Ryan. And another starter. And a new manager. Sigh,

ERUC: Mackowiak is a left-handed hitter. But there is no reason why the Cubs can't have two left-handed bats with pop on the bench in 2006. Also, unlike some "super-sub" utility guys (like Jose Macias, for instance), Mackowiak CAN play CF (as well as LF, RF, 3B, 2B, and 1B--just not SS).

I can't say for sure what Murton's defense is overall, but I do know that he should've caught that ball last night. And Hairston probably would've. Means nothing in the long term, just a short-term observation.

I meant ERIC, not ERUC. Sorry.

So, wouldn't it be the case that Poster #1, continuing to complain about something -- particularly something he can't solve -- is really the problem? If Poster #1 didn't incessantly complain about, say, Neifi, Poster #2 might not be inclined to ask him to knock it off, so to speak. And then there'd be less complaining overall. Wait, never mind, that's not true. But the bottom line is that Neifi could be 10 for 10 against a pitcher, and if someone answered that's why he's playing, the Poster #1 contingent would still complain. I'm not saying they're wrong to do so, that's just the way it is.

Rob G. "Of course that's not always the case, some folks just hate Dusty and will blame him if the sun didn't rise tomorrow or if some kid in A-ball got released (of course since Dusty recently took credit for the Jaxx success, I suppose he's can now be held accountable for the developments of the Boise Hawks)" Hey Rob, I assume that this comment was aimed at me since I commented that Dusty had an effect on Hendry who didn't protect Sisco. First of all I have fairly well developed reasons for disliking Dusty that I have elaborated on in the past quite thoroughly . . . and Dusty does indeed continue to repeat these patterns that I find offensive for any high paid professional and most importantly contrary to winning baseball. (Here comes Manny . . . ) I have very respectable reasons for my opinions and anyone who knows me from the Chat rooms back when I watched games (I quit watching Cubs games earlier this year for the first season in my life because of the product on the field, Dusty Baker and Hendry/McPhail - but mostly Dusty) would vouch that I am a fairly reasonable person. I even liked Manny . . . who is one of my greatest critics. It seems so pattently obvious to me since early 2004 that Dusty is a woefully poor manager in every respect of the game and that managing in CHicago has brought out nothing short of a disaster in the guy. Every article is headline "Baker blah blah blah" and he blathers on in an egotistical non-accountable double talk that is, well, just plain unacceptable for a manager who has failed in every respect over the last two seasons. I have every right to call the guy out. Frankly I think it is fairly obvious that Baker is a freak in charge of our beloved ballclub. As far as my statement regarding Baker influencing Hendry on the Sisco decision. It was part joke part logic. But it is not a HUGE stretch to imagine that Baker's psychopathic defensive attitude at the end of 2004 made Hendry conscious of 'trouble oriented' ballplayers. Hendry was on a mission to rid the team of scapegoat Sosa, scapegoat Mercker, scapegoat Farns, scapegoat Alou, dealing with scapegoat Steve Stone etc. Hendry was busy cleaning up Dusty's ego shreds and pretty clearly failed to address the two major league OF we needed (Burnitz was okay - but we needed two others realistically) and the closer situation. All in the name of having a team with a good attitude. It is entirely possible that Baker's 'bad attitude ballclub meltdown whining" that concluded the 2004 flop (losing 6 in a row after having a 1.5 game WC lead while throwing Hawkins out there to fial repeatedly, and allowing players to fight with television announcers) made Hendry conscious of ballplayers like Sisco and made them more expendable than they might otherwise have been. Is it not likely that Baker was informed of the decision? Is it possible that Baker and Hendry had a conversation about a 6'9" Lefty Flamethrower? WHo for the record has pitched better than anyon in the Cubs bullpen this year? It is not a conspiracy theory. It is simple fact that the team suffered from image problems and Hendry was trying to deal with that. Even Crucnh when listing his description of Sisco a few days back talked of his bad attitude and weight problem. That is very likely the reason Sisco was not protected. ANd Dusty's loose nuthouse 2004 season probably influenced Hendry on that front. Frankly I am a little surprised at you Rob G. for dismissing people like me as a Dusty Baker hater - and not worthy of contributing. I think people like me (and Mike C and Bleed Blue even before me) just know what Dusty is and know that until he is gone we are kind of screwed -- and the talent window and tradeability of our highly touted prospects appears to be waning. You can buy the theory or not but to dismiss it as insanity in the midst of the other opinions that fly around here is pretty frickin gutless.

So, wouldn't it be the case that Poster #1, continuing to complain about something -- particularly something he can't solve -- is really the problem? Well, using that basis we should shutdown the comments, because I doubt anyone here can "solve" any of the problems on this team. We can propose solutions, but if the Cubs organization doesn't follow them, I guess we shouldn't post at all?

It's possible that Dusty Baker was the perfect manager to take the Cubs from destitude (2002) to contender (2003), but isn't the right guy to take them to the next level. Maybe Dusty Baker is the kind of manager who would be perfect on a team that rarely infiltrates prospects through to the major leagues (instead trading them away for players who can help them right now), like the Yankees or Red Sox do. That doesn't make Baker a BAD manager. It just means he may not be the right manager for a team that has young players who may become everyday players if given a chance. Or maybe we have totally misread Jim Hendry. Even though he was a college baseball coach and then a player develpoment guy, maybe as GM his philosophy is to develop players just enough to make them atteactive in a trade, and then deal the youngster (Dontrelle Willis, Ryan Jorgensen, Bobby Hill, Matt Bruback, Hee Seop Choi, Brendan Harris, Francis Beltran, Jason Dubois, et al)--along with "seen-their-best-years" veterans (like Damian Miller and LaTroy Hawkins) for proven (albeit still relatively young) established major leaguers with talent who have not yet reached their full potential (Matt Clement, Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee, Michael Barrett, Jerome Williams, Jody Gerut, et al).

"The cut and paste job this year (Holly, Dooby, Mecias, Hariston,Lawton) should make Hendry get legitamate players(Damon, Dunn, Giles)." -- Jacos, you don't mean all 3 of these guys, right? Damon, Dunn, Giles... I hope you don't think that's possible. Increase payroll to $130 Mil. and it can happen.

I completely agree with you AZ

X--"or are you just arguing semantics for the fun of it?"

I was just pointing out an ironic inconsistency in your argument. No comment about the abilities of Dubois, Cedeno or any other prospect was attached. I do actually very much agree that it's not as simple as success in the minors translating to success to the majors, but I'd also say it's not as simple as failure in the minors translating to failure in the majors, as you suggested.

Despite my complete and utter disrespect for Dusty Baker as Cubs' manager I am able to see that AZ Phil's take is somewhat likely. Baker has never taken a team all the way home to a WS victory. Also he has never been under media scrutiny like that of the Cubs (a nationally worshipped superstation team in a media center like Chicago). He may have been a success at bringing us up to competitive level but when the chips were on the table in Game 6 against FLA and when the expectations went to the roof in 2004 . . . well my take is he crumbled and is still reeling and unprepared. The chicago bulls doug collins/phil jackson analogy might apply here. Though collins was never the media pr disaster that Baker is on his best days.

"I do actually very much agree that it's not as simple as success in the minors translating to success to the majors, but I'd also say it's not as simple as failure in the minors translating to failure in the majors, as you suggested." Ok - then we are on the same page. My problem with Cedeno is a cross between his minor league failures, and his general Augieness.

ummm. I really wasn't referencing you at all super, sorry you took offense. I vaguely remember the comment about Baker being the reason Sisco was left unprotected, but I certainly didn't remember who wrote it and can't say that I was really thinking about it when I wrote what I did, at least not consiouscly. Especially since I wrote something like an A ball player getting released and Sisco was left unprotected, to me they're very different things (although I can see the correlation, if I was specifically referencing Sisco, trust me, I would have specifically mentioned him being left unprotected. And I'm certainly not dismissing anyone's opinions or their level of worthiness. I really have no idea where you got that from. Bash Dusty all you want, I do enough of it myself lately, all I hope from folks is that they are objective about it. I've heard a lot of crazy things around here of how Dusty is to be blamed from blowing out Chad Fox's arm to insisting that Baker is starting players despite strict orders from Hendry on who to start OR (my personal favorite) , that Hendry told Baker to sit Gerut the day he got traded and Baker started him anyway. And I'm not saying any of those are your opinions, I honestly can't say I've followed enough of your comments to recall what you've said. Those are just some of the things I've seen bandied about around here and it's those type of statements that I was referencing in my original comment. (and to those who did write those statements above, I'm not calling you out or anything, you have the right to your opinions, as ridiculous as I find the 3 I mentioned). Sorry for the confusion anyway, Super, Peace be with you!

Big John- I mean quality players, and why not dream a little dream. Remember the Cubs are a big market team.

Rob G. Sorry for jumping the gun on that conclusion. - SJ

So, wouldn't it be the case that Poster #1, continuing to complain about something -- particularly something he can't solve -- is really the problem? Well if we stopped discussing things we can't solve, the comments on this site would hardly ever reach double digits.What's the fun in that? Half the fun for many of us is to play armchair GM or armchair manager, I can't see what's wrong with that. On top of that, I'm going to venture a guess that TCR is therapy for many a frustrated Cub fan and the ability to vent about a player, manager or management is what makes most people come back time and time again. Now I can see your complaint that people tend to just repeat the same thing over and over, and my original comment was that I wasn't sure which was worse. But just saying knock it off, is the equivalent of just telling someone to Shut up, and I don't see the point, I guess. It's fairly easy to just ignore someone here, it's not like your at the ballpark with an obnoxious fan sitting behind you and you can't escape. And if you feel the need to comment, can't we say, knock it off cause neifi is 10 for 10 against this guy? instead of just, knock it off? Seems better to me... I suppose many do give reasons or evidence and it's ignored so they just stoop to nothing more than trivial replies. Anyway I'm done with this, sorry for even bringing it up.

Ienpw--"Personally, I think his upside is a good glove hollow .280 batting average player. That's not much different than Neifi Perez."

Do you mean the same Neifi Perez that's a career .248/.281/.335 hitter in games not played at Coors Field? I believe that'd make Neifi a good glove hollow .248 batting average player!

All I've got to say is that I find poster #1 and #2 both extremely annoying.

Allow me to clarify: Of course, we're all here to talk baseball, to varying degrees. Moves, lineups, Dusty bashing, whatever. But what I meant by "problem that you can't solve" is that 100 comments a day about Neifi being in the lineup when he "shouldn't be" is a problem that can't be solved...we can't make the decision. Actually, I'm not really making myself clear here. Of cours we need discussion, and to take what I said to the extreme that we should then shut down the comments is incorrect. I guess it was more of a poorly phrased post, not the first and not the last. Carry on.

Someone could say Neifi is 10 for 10, knock it off, and you know what that would get in return. Yeah, we all know, so that wouldn't "solve" anything. (Get it? I used "solve" again. Pretty funny.)

All I've got to say is that I find poster #1 and #2 both extremely annoying. As I said, tough call... And to quote Bob: "Carry on"

"maybe as GM his philosophy is to develop players just enough to make them atteactive in a trade, and then deal the youngster" AZ Phil, I don't think that is what Hendry does. He has yet to trade a prosecpt that anyone at the time thinks is top shelf. Look at the deadline this year. From accounts I have seen he could have had Austin Kearns straight up for Rich Hill but passed. He could have had Hill as the center of a package for Soriano. He could have had Preston Wilson for Cedeno and Wellemeyer but did not want to give up Cedeno. Hendry only trades the prosecpts who dont project well or have failed at the MLB level. The most highly touted prosecpt he has traded was Brendan Harris and that was so he could get Murton in the Nomar deal. Gammons did a couple of articles on this this year. on Aug. 5 he wrote "Jim Hendry wants to get Pie in center and Cedeno at shortstop by next year." on July 9 he wrote: "The Yankees or Cubs probably could have had Mark Kotsay before he signed his extension, and filled a void for the next three years. But Brian Cashman and Jim Hendry never wavered and refused to trade their best young players -- including Eric Duncan, Philip Hughes, Felix Pie and Brian Dopirak." and that: "Hendry also is under pressure, in Chicago, where Cubs fans have become less patient. "We want to win today, but there has to be a steady growth with young players," says Hendry, who turned to Double-A this week and brought up outfielders Matt Murton and Adam Greenberg; had he not been hurt, Felix Pie would have been up two weeks ago. "We haven't yet done a great job developing positional players," says Hendry. "But we hope we will. Do we have a list of players we won't trade? Absolutely. I wouldn't say them publicly [Pie, Dopirak at the top]. And we can be wrong, and five years look back and think how silly we were. But that's not the way to look at it. You want young blood coming in, and in terms of business, you'd better have it or there's no way you can survive financially" Why does like Dopiriak so much? All he is anther Dubois and Kelton.

Do you mean the same Neifi Perez that's a career .248/.281/.335 hitter in games not played at Coors Field? I believe that'd make Neifi a good glove hollow .248 batting average player!? I was comparing him to this years Neifi rebirth. I guess Julio Lugo, last years Cesar Izturis and Adam Everett, and Edgar Renteria (non 02/03 version) would be possible matches. Although I don't know if he'll ever be much of a base threat.

"he could have had Austin Kearns straight up for Rich Hill but passed" what?

[b]Why does like Dopiriak so much? All he is anther Dubois and Kelton.[/b] He has had a horrible season in the FSL, but the FSL is one of the most pitcher friendly leagues in the minor leagues. He showed promise in the AFL and is still young. He has big time power potential, more than Kelton and Dubois does. Still, he has great concerns with his strikeout rate: 107 K, 37 BB. Going to the season he was a top 25 prospect by Baseball America. He isn't one now, but in my opinion, Hendry may not overrate the prospects as much as not get off their bandwagon as quickly as someone else would. What I just wrote doesn't make sense. Oh well...

i think the key holding up in that wilson trade was pie, not d-pack anyway...besides, lawton came on board for a whole lot less impact to the system. unfortunately, lawton forgot to hit the second he got on a plane to come here and still hasnt figured it out in pinstripes...weird.

"OíBrien might be willing to trade Kearns to the Cubs if left-hander Rich Hill is in the deal. But it seems unlikely that Hendry would go that far, as much as he would like to get his hands on Kearns." that sun-times article is what has been pushing that kearns/hill thing, btw...unless ive missed something... that's a whole different deal that it actually being discussed or dismissed.

Rob G: "I'm not trying to discourage anyone from discussing anything, but I am trying to encourage actual discussion. And I will do what I just advocated above and ignore those comments when I come across them." I guess you just ignored post #22.

kearns for hill was also mentioned in the Daily Herald, whom I trust a whole lot more. "The Cubs would love to pry outfielder Austin Kearns from the Cincinnati Reds. The Reds demoted Kearns to the minor leagues earlier this year, but theyíd likely ask for pitching prospect Rich Hill in return." likely doesn't mean it's true though. NO ONE here knows the terms that were discussed or players involved. Just cause it showed up in an article as a possibility doesn't make it true.

oh you poor victim manny, I'm suppose to respond to a veiled physical threat over the Internet. Fine.. Big John Stud (Kudos to the 80's wrestling name) --- Please do not threaten TCR readers with physical abuse or risk being banned. If you were being sarcastic please indicate so next time with the use of a smiley face :) or some other such notion that makes it obvious that you were kidding and in no way intended to find out who the real MannyTrillo was (or other reader), locate their home or place of work, and intended to instigate a physical confrontation. Thanks, the management there's a couple minutes of my life I won't get back...

No Rob, as a "writer" on here you should actaully try and keep personal attacks by other posters in check. But who am I to tell the "management" what to do. I guess if it isn't a big deal, other should repond to personal attack with persoanl attacks. That would make TCR more fun. Then the comments will get shut down when Ruz fianlly gets tired of dealing with it. I know you don't like me and I personally can care less, but you should at least be consistant and try and keep the personal attacks in check even though they are directed unprokingly toward a person you don't like. Thanks, a poster

I don't understand why someone has to resort to personal attacks. It's the Internet.

as a "writer" here I should be able to devote my time to actually "writing", rather than policing, what I suspect to be about a 99% adult population. I have faith that you fellas can maintain this community yourselves with occassional help from the "writers" I'm not in the mood to look it up, but there was a fairly well-thought out comments section awhile back that illustrated why you appear to take the brunt of the personal attacks. I suggest re-reading it... Cause if you don't like the way we're moderating the comments, you certainly can do a whole lot to diffuse the matter. No, personal attacks are not right and when I deem it appropriate (and have time), I'll delete a comment or say something, but I certainly don't need you constantly telling us what's right or wrong. Me liking you or not is such a non-issue I don't even know where to begin. I do everything I can to remain objective, sorry if you don't see that. Specifically to today's comment from Big John Stud, who remarked about slapping you across the face... I suppose I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and like to believe that he was joking there. I don't have a catalog of who likes who on this site, so I have no idea if there is a prior history between you two, but slapping another man across the face sounds so silly that I was wiling to chalk it up to sarcasm. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I said I don't have the desire to delete or comment on everything that may or may not be offensive. It has to be pretty blatant in my book and even then I'll give someone a leash, sort of a 3 strikes and you're out type thing (that's more of a guideline than a rule). Sorry if this doesn't appease you or others, but I'd rather talk baseball than try and police a bunch of adults who should be able to govern themselves. As I said, if someone goes way overboard, I'll step in, but don't expect much more. If you have a problem with it, I suggest discussing it with the other writers on the site.

I think it'd be for the best if I sit next to my computer night and day, not a second away, constantly refreshing the Cub Reporter comments. Then I will be in a position to act the very instant that something is posted that I disagree with, or think that someone else may disagree with, or just want to edit for the fun of it. Action will be virtually instant and overwhelming, except perhaps when I am distracted by the cricket on television. Words will be stuffed into mouths before you can even say "I didn't actually say that". No, you will have said it, because I'll have said that you said it, and no record will exist that you ever said otherwise. I realise that this is not ideal. It would be far better were I able to read your minds, and act pre-emptively, rather than having to very quickly react to your words. No! It would be far better were I able to control your minds, and thus not no-one in the history of the Cub Reporter would ever be personally attacked again, because they'd never have the inclination to do so, because I, a "writer", frigging well said so. So, if you don't mind me, I'm off to train in hypnotherapy. Because this training will take a few weeks, probably, I recommend that you make the best possible use of the remaining time you have left before your brains become nothing but slaves to me and my very own unprokingly brand of utopia.

It was a joke, manny. It's only fun because you're a weasel about it. Rob knew it was a joke with no harm intended and you should know better too. People like to give you a hard time because you're "poster #2". Don't be "poster #2" and complain about someone complaining. We have the right to express displeasure with Dustbag and his half-ass methods or anything else Cub related. You don't have the right to complain about us complaining. This is a Cubs forum to complain about the Cubs, not a complaint forum to complain about complaints.

Big John Stud: "This is a Cubs forum to complain about the Cubs, " Then be an adult and stick to complaing about the Cubs.

S-L-A-P!

HA HA CLASSy!!

Big John Stud does more slapping than Neifi Perez.