Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Gonfalon Cubs > Discussion
Gonfalon Cubs
— Cubs Baseball for Thinking Fans

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Mike Emeigh Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:28 PM (#2045848)
Rich Hill promptly returned to Triple A and dominated Nashville, a team with some quality bats.


This outing had a lot to do with:

(a) the weather, which was miserable, and
(b) the home plate umpire's ridiculous strike zone.

-- MWE
   2. Kiko Sakata Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#2045857)
How does Rothschild figure in this situation?

I think he's pretty clearly part of the problem. Baker's entire staff needs to go, with the possible exception of Chris Speier (only because he hasn't been there long and he's so much better than Wendell Kim that I'm willing to cut him the slightest of slack).

The Cubs have been running guys up from Iowa all season and how many have done jack-#### for the Cubs?
Marshall. Maybe Aardsma, but he was pretty bad the first time, so I'm not ready to sing his praises for one game.

It seems reasonable to me to lay at least some of the blame for the inability of Wood and Prior to get and/or stay healthy on their pitching coach.

So who does that leave that's benefitted from Rothschild? Maybe Zambrano, but I tend to think he's just a freak of nature who would be doing what he does anywhere for anybody, but maybe that's not entirely fair.
   3. More Indecisive than Lonnie Smith on 2nd... Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:38 PM (#2045859)
Why use Restovich when the Cubs can get Phil Nevin?
   4. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:38 PM (#2045860)
Hairston for Nevin and cash

Anyone want to guess, uh, why?
   5. Kiko Sakata Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#2045863)
The opening line from Randy's link: Struggling designated hitter Phil Nevin was traded Wednesday by the Texas Rangers to the Chicago Cubs

Yes, clearly what the Cubs need is a player who's struggling offensively and plays a position that the Cubs don't get to use in their league!
   6. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#2045864)
Anyone want to guess, uh, why?

Hairston slept with Cindy Sandberg?
   7. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#2045865)
The opening line from Randy's link

That's funny - I was going to post the same quote.

The Rangers must be thrilled. A $10M contract off the books, for a guy who had been demoted to the bench. And they get someone halfway useful in return.
   8. Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate Posted: May 31, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#2045884)
Why give up Hairston, who has some small but tangible value, for another team's multimillion dollar albatross contract?

Why give up anything for a guy who has very little present and no future value in a season where the odds of making the playoffs are 100 to 1?

Why not give up a bit more and get Craig Wilson, who's everything Phil Nevin is except better, cheaper, and younger?

(And I know the answers to all these questions are "because the Cubs are run by morons." They're rhetorical.)
   9. Urban Faber Posted: May 31, 2006 at 10:00 PM (#2045888)
#6 nearly made me spit out my drink.
   10. covelli chris p Posted: May 31, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#2045901)
you guys are insane.
   11. Luke Jasenosky Posted: May 31, 2006 at 10:25 PM (#2045927)
Ah, Phil Nevin. At least he has hit LHP with some authority so far: .267/.340/.533. With Restovich in house, I still think this is stupid, even though I won't miss Hairston.

Unfortunately, does anyone get the feeling that this trade was inspired too some extent by the brilliant play of our own Tony Womack? It's scary, but I think fifteen at bats are more than enough to convince Baker/Hendry that they've found their number 2 hitter for the remainder of '06.
   12. Neil M Posted: May 31, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#2045935)
The double he hit off Clausen after the rain delay came after 2 batters had walked on a combined 9 pitches and on a 1-0 count.

It's just as well it was as grooved a pitch by a struggling pitcher as I’ve seen because otherwise it was stupid.
   13. Luke Jasenosky Posted: May 31, 2006 at 10:49 PM (#2045956)
Hey Neil,

That was my point. It was dumb for him to swing at the pitch, but he obviously was prepared for a meaty offering, as Hume had just visited the mound. It doesn't excuse his hacktastic ways, but I think he was smart enough to realize that any pitch on the inner half in his zone would probably arrive without much zip and he did take advantage of it. Without the rain delay, I'd bet my '87 Topps Drew Hall card he would have put up another miserable performance.
   14. Neil M Posted: May 31, 2006 at 11:13 PM (#2045985)
but he obviously was prepared for a meaty offering,

I think you give himtoo much credit. I'd say that he was going to rip at anything around the zone because that's what he does 99% of the time. The likely quality of the pitch probably had nothing to do with his action. All the same, he got the hit so I'll save further moans until the next time he doesn't.
   15. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 31, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#2045997)
New hire Tony Womack has hit .500 since his call up, and the Cubs might as well ride his hot streak.

. . . and sign him to a 2-yr, $4.5mm deal as the second baseman for 2007-08.
   16. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: May 31, 2006 at 11:29 PM (#2046020)

Why not give up a bit more and get Craig Wilson, who's everything Phil Nevin is except better, cheaper, and younger?


In the Cubs defense - and I loathe doing it - I'm thinking the Bucs have a near ridiculously high asking price for Wilson. I think he's been near the top of any "Most likely to be traded" list since what... January (?) and hasn't been moved yet. I'd have paid more than Hairston for him, but I have a feeling the Pirates are thinking Pie, Milledge, or someone of that timber in return.
   17. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 31, 2006 at 11:33 PM (#2046032)
I think he's been near the top of any "Most likely to be traded" list since what... January (?) and hasn't been moved yet.

I thought Walker was at the top of that list.

Btw, as lousy as this team has been, could you imagine how much worse it would have been if Hendry had followed his plan and dealt Walker for some spare minor leaguers?
   18. Neil M Posted: May 31, 2006 at 11:35 PM (#2046040)
I think fifteen at bats are more than enough to convince Baker/Hendry that they've found their number 2 hitter for the remainder of '06.

Not tonight. Against the LHP, Dusty has opted for Neifi. In the 2 hole. It's like last year never happened.
   19. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: May 31, 2006 at 11:38 PM (#2046050)
Btw, as lousy as this team has been, could you imagine how much worse it would have been if Hendry had followed his plan and dealt Walker for some spare minor leaguers?

That would have given Dusty a chance to follow his heart and bat Neifi 3rd or 4th, though... Sadly, I'm not so sure the Cubs would have scored less in May than they did anyway.

Boy... setting aside Nevin - and if Walker HAD been dealt, with Lee out, and Barrett soon to miss 10 games -- imagine a lineup with Bynum, Blanco, Neifi, and Mabry. You just KNOW we'd have seen several of those.
   20. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: June 01, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#2046509)
Not tonight. Against the LHP, Dusty has opted for Neifi. In the 2 hole. It's like last year never happened.


Or all of this year.
   21. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 01, 2006 at 04:27 AM (#2046882)
Hairston for Nevin and cash

One of DJF's PR moves. The Cubs get a useless player with a recognizable name. It's a fan base palliative that will have little effect on the win column. The best part of it is that the team has now spent about $7 million for zilch. The bean counters in Trib Corp. will love that.

This moribund front office is a joke.
   22. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 01, 2006 at 04:29 AM (#2046884)
The Rangers got utility player Jerry Hairston Jr. from the Cubs and will pay most of the remaining difference between Nevin's $10 million salary and the $2.3 million Hairston is making this season.

Oops

The Cubs are still idiots
   23. SouthSideRyan Posted: June 01, 2006 at 05:09 AM (#2046900)
From what I'd read, Nevin will cost the Cubs about 1.5M more than Hairston would have.
   24. Dr. Vaux Posted: June 01, 2006 at 07:14 AM (#2046911)
I don't think a six day rotation would diminish pitchers' "win" totals. It would make them more uniformally effective when they do pitch, which would if anything add some wins, but at last compensate for the lost few starts. It also removes some of the risk that they'll miss even more starts than that, and if it involves a few relief appearances too, it would probably result in more decisions instead of fewer. Maybe a team could even get their pitchers to understand all that, if it approached the situation properly. Plus, it's not like potential free-agent suitors wouldn't be aware of how a pitcher had been deployed during his previous contract. They'd just look at the effectivness stats, like most teams already do, I assume.
   25. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 08:10 PM (#2053898)
The Cubs drafted Clemson outfielder Tyler Colvin with their first pick. What about their subsequent picks, you ask?

The Cubs did not have another selection until the fifth round. They lost the second-, third- and fourth-round picks when they signed free agents Bob Howry, Scott Eyre and Jacque Jones


It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
   26. Moses Taylor loves a good maim Posted: June 06, 2006 at 08:58 PM (#2053983)
Not only that Pops, but this guy isn't that great of a prospect, supposedly. He was ranked 170th by BA.
   27. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: June 06, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#2054059)
From what I've read, he's a guy that has been very hot the last few weeks, causing him to rise in many rankings. Most scouts figured he'd go in the first few rounds (the consensus was probably Round 2), but to go at #13 was a surprise and possibly an overdraft.

I've also read speculation that the Cubs had a predraft deal worked out, the idea being that they could save money for use in trying to attract Jeff Samardzija (the ND rhp/WR they picked in the 5th round).
   28. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 09:46 PM (#2054085)
the idea being that they could save money for use in trying to attract Jeff Samardzija

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
   29. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: June 06, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#2054151)
Most scouts figured he'd go in the first few rounds (the consensus was probably Round 2), but to go at #13 was a surprise and possibly an overdraft.

FWIW, he went in the early second round in the Callis mock draft (I think around #50).

When you've only got 1 pick in the first four rounds (the "hidden" cost of all those bullpen signings), I'm not sure going with a project is the best choice.
   30. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: June 06, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#2054193)
But the last Clemson football player to be picked early in the MLB draft was an unqualified success!!!!
   31. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 06, 2006 at 11:30 PM (#2054259)
When you've only got 1 pick in the first four rounds (the "hidden" cost of all those bullpen signings), I'm not sure going with a project is the best choice.

When you've only got 1 pick in the first four rounds, why do you need to bother with a "signability" guy (if they did do that) in order to throw money at someone else? I'm not that familiar with this year's draft crop due to school and studying for the bar but every year seems to bring a crop of guys who want too much money for their eventual draft spot.

Maybe the rising revenues have eliminated the need for teams to avoid expensive players.

I hope the Cubs reinvest the unspent draft money in their Caribbean and Latin American programs. Lord knows it isn't doing them any good to use it at the major league level (Phil Nevin).
   32. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: June 06, 2006 at 11:34 PM (#2054271)
This must be the year that the vaunted Hendry scouting machine jumps the shark.

This sucks. The Cubs are the first would-be 'dynasty' I can remember that skipped right past the whole 'consistent contention' and 'winning titles' phase and proceeded directly to irrelevance, sputtering away and deaf and blind to where things went wrong.
   33. KB JBAR (trhn) Posted: June 07, 2006 at 12:15 AM (#2054364)
It seems stupid and shortsighted, but I don't think anyone should get too bent out of shape about the Cubs losing their 2-4th round picks. According to philly's draft study (IIRC, SOSH won't let me access it anymore), picks made after the first half of the first round aren't really worth that much anyway. By the 40th pick, the average player has the same career value as Ron Coomer or John Flaherty.

And since Hendry took over as scouting director, the Cubs have done a good job in the draft. That doesn't mean that Colvin was a good pick, but I guess we'll see. It would be odd to see the Cubs make a signability pick since they have never been shy about drafting Boras clients or other expensive talent.

I read in a chat with Goldstein that Colvin is pretty polished--a sort of low risk, low reward pick. He was rumored to be a potential 1st round pick by the White Sox at 29.
   34. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 07, 2006 at 01:25 AM (#2054563)
By the 40th pick, the average player has the same career value as Ron Coomer or John Flaherty.

Which would be an improvement on how many of Chicago's current roster spots?
   35. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: June 07, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#2054595)
And since Hendry took over as scouting director, the Cubs have done a good job in the draft.

See - I'm not so sure about this anymore. Hill washed out - although everyone had him as a decent to better major league quality 2b/leadoff hitter. Dopirak's stalled (though sure, he's still young). Ditto Harvey. Pawelek is still to young to really look at... Beyond Prior --- Marshall? Brendan Harris?

I'm not saying Hendry hasn't drafted well - I'm just thinking back-of-the-napkin here... The gem out of the Cubs' recent drafts (and I'm just thinking Hendry as scouting director and GM time) was the oft-injured Prior, but I could have made that pick. Zambrano was a FA (and, I believe, credit for him goes to Oneri Fleita). I guess you could look at the players Hendry's pissed away -- Sisco and Nolasco look to be keepers. I'm not certain when Dontrelle Willis was drafted.

The former Cubs system renaissance was really built at least as much on better international scouting and signings (Choi, Ryu, Z, Cruz, etc) - and I think Fleita and the departed Leon Lee get more credit for that than Hendry.

I'm not saying Hendry's been awful in the draft - far from it - but while I might have agreed the Cubs have drafted well under Hendry last year, I'm a bit skeptical today. That could well be my distaste for the general suckiness of the Cubs coloring my opinion... but there it is.
   36. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 07, 2006 at 01:37 AM (#2054608)
I'm not certain when Dontrelle Willis was drafted.

He was.

I have long been of the opinion that the Cubs are not an above average drafting team. They have, however, been exemplary in finding international talent. Perhaps the best in baseball?
   37. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 07, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2054614)
I'm not certain when Dontrelle Willis was drafted.

He was.


I no read good.

He was picked in the 8th round of the 2000 draft.
   38. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: June 07, 2006 at 01:48 AM (#2054650)
Best?

Hmmm... I think the Dodgers still seem do pretty well for themselves (thinking of Guzman, Aybar... could probably come up with a few more). Obviously, the Cubs are eons ahead of where they were 10 years ago - or 20 years ago, when the Jays and Dodgers seemed own the interational market. Looking over the past 20 years - I found Hector Villanueva in the late 80s.. Jeremi Gonzalez a few years later -- then nothing until the Hendry regime.

Again, though - I read that much of the international credit has to go to Fleita and Lee. I suppose it's a good thing that Hendry had the sense to elevate Fleita when he was promoted...
   39. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: June 07, 2006 at 01:54 AM (#2054662)
He was picked in the 8th round of the 2000 draft.

Ahhh yes... the "we got the next A-Rod!" draft.
   40. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 07, 2006 at 02:13 AM (#2054709)

Ahhh yes... the "we got the next A-Rod!" draft.


I was thinking about that one today. I believe Montanez is still on the short list for ;argest signing bonuses six years after the fact.
   41. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: June 07, 2006 at 02:40 AM (#2054761)
It seems stupid and shortsighted, but I don't think anyone should get too bent out of shape about the Cubs losing their 2-4th round picks. According to philly's draft study (IIRC, SOSH won't let me access it anymore), picks made after the first half of the first round aren't really worth that much anyway.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this is supposed to be the weakest draft class since 2000.
   42. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: June 07, 2006 at 02:43 AM (#2054769)
And since Hendry took over as scouting director, the Cubs have done a good job in the draft.

See - I'm not so sure about this anymore.


Neither am I. IMO, the Cubs drafted far better when Hendry was scouting director than since he's been GM. This year's draft was run by the new scouting director, Tim Wilken -- who got good reviews for his past work with the Devil Rays and especially the Blue Jays -- so we'll have to see.
   43. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: June 07, 2006 at 02:48 AM (#2054784)
Here is Kevin Goldstein's take on the Cubs strategy (Colvin/Samardzija):

"The Colvin pick is not a pick within itself, it is part of a much bigger picture, and a pretty interesting move. Colvin was generally seen as a third-round talent, but the Cubs took him there because they were going to grab Samardzija in the fifth, as they're the only team willing to pay him AND give him a deal that at least temporarily allows him to still play football. So instead of taking Samardzija in the first round (and he does have late first round talent), they took a guy who would NOT be there in the fifth AND still got Samardzija. It's a risky gambit, and frankly, it's one I don't like. Those two sports guys who still play football don't have a great track record."
   44. KB JBAR (trhn) Posted: June 07, 2006 at 03:53 AM (#2054859)
Notable players drafted by the Cubs since Jim Hendry became scouting director:

1996 - Kyle Lohse
1997 - Jon Garland, Scott Downs, Michael Wuertz
1998 - Corey Patterson, Ohman, Eric Hinske
1999 - Steve Smyth, John Webb, Pete Zoccolillo [Terrible draft]
2000 - Wellemeyer, Leicester, Dubois, Dontrelle Willis
2001 - Prior, Nolasco, Brendan Harris, Mitre

2002 - Dopirak (for better or worse), Rich Hill, Randy Wells
2003 - Harvey (for better or worse), Marshall
2004 - E. Patterson, Gallagher
2005 - Pawelek, Veal, Holliman


For 1996-2001 I'd say there's at least an average of a ML starter and a ML reliever/UT a season. Although there aren't any superstars on that list, it seems like a good haul for 6 years worth of drafting.

Although there appears to be some merit to the claim that the Cubs' drafts have been worse since Hendry became GM, I think it's too soon to know for sure. For 2002, things don't look great. Hill might be a AAAA guy, but I'd like to see him get some real innings before making that judgment. I like Wells as a possible contributor. For the 2003 draft, Harvey looks bad (and looked bad at the time, he could turn it around, though). Marshall looks good. For 2004, Patterson and Gallagher look like B- or so prospects. Who knows about 2005?

One weakness for the farm system is that it appears as if the Cubs have not been doing as well in the international market since about 2001. None of their top 20 prospects according to Sickels are international signings made after 2001.
   45. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 07, 2006 at 12:33 PM (#2055057)
they're the only team willing to pay him AND give him a deal that at least temporarily allows him to still play football

Good news for me!

Those two sports guys who still play football don't have a great track record.

How many of those guys were pitchers?

None of their top 20 prospects according to Sickels are international signings made after 2001.

That's not good. Teams with large financial resources have the opportunity to improve the club with international players.
   46. Moses Taylor loves a good maim Posted: June 07, 2006 at 01:08 PM (#2055070)
How many of those guys were pitchers?

Chad Hutchinson is one I can think of. Who are the other guys (non-pitchers)? Henson, Carter, Weinke, Borchard. It's early, I'm drawing a blank.
   47. H. Vaughn Posted: June 08, 2006 at 01:44 PM (#2056113)
Matt Mauck and Quincy Morgan are two Cub picks who did the two sport thing.
   48. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: June 08, 2006 at 05:44 PM (#2056276)
Thanks for the list, Nuge --

I think that pretty well backs up the idea that the Cubs have necessarily had good drafts under Hendry, but they certainly haven't been disastrous either. I'd say the Cubs have drafted 'competently' under Hendry.

The most glaring thing that jumps out, though - is that the best hitter among those classes, Eric Hinske, was a guy they basically gave away and seemed, at least in the organization, to be rated below Kelton and Ryan Gripp... neither of whom have a career ahead of them in baseball.

I have no idea how 'proper' or 'fair' it is to split judgements of a team's drafts into "pitching" and "hitting" - but the Cubs ability to identify offensive talent in the draft looks to me like it's pretty abysmal. They may have made up for it with fairly strong scouting of pitching, but there's no denying the Cubs seem to have very little insight on what makes a good offensive prospect.

As far as the international situation...

I know Leon Lee is no longer with the organization - so little suprise the Pacific Rim hasn't yielded many young Cubs in the last few years.

Since Fleita moved upstairs - and is no longer "on the ground" in Latin America, I wonder if the issue with international talent is that the Cubs no longer have anyone with the eye and connections to mine this potential pool?
   49. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: June 08, 2006 at 05:47 PM (#2056281)
Matt Mauck and Quincy Morgan are two Cub picks who did the two sport thing.

Is that Quincy Carter or Quincy Morgan? Both names sound familiar - but Carter failed miserably that I might be thinking he was 2 people.
   50. H. Vaughn Posted: June 08, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#2056285)
Oops, good catch. It was Q. Carter.
   51. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 08, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#2056295)
Who knows about 2005?


Veal and Holliman look like the real deals. Both have a few more walks than you might like to see, but their other peripherals are outstanding. I expect to see Holliman at West Tenn and Veal in Daytona before the year is out.

-- MWE
   52. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 08, 2006 at 11:52 PM (#2056704)
the Cubs ability to identify offensive talent in the draft looks to me like it's pretty abysmal.

Your Kelton example also illustrates the problem of identifying offensive talent within the organization. Forget trading away Hinske, they kept Kelton in AAA while forcing Sing to repeat AA. Sing doesn't look too good at AAA but how much does a player really learn from tearing up the same level two years in a row? Why did the club think Kelton (who never produced much at any level) could be a useful major leaguer after moving to an OF corner?

Mike,

What do you think of Scott Moore's future?
   53. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 08, 2006 at 11:55 PM (#2056711)
Argh!

Sing was in Daytona in 2004 when he put up that big line (before 2005's big line in West Tenn). I was fooled by the West Tenn appearance he made in 2003 and mixed up the rows.
   54. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: June 09, 2006 at 03:22 AM (#2057279)
Your Kelton example also illustrates the problem of identifying offensive talent within the organization. Forget trading away Hinske, they kept Kelton in AAA while forcing Sing to repeat AA. Sing doesn't look too good at AAA but how much does a player really learn from tearing up the same level two years in a row? Why did the club think Kelton (who never produced much at any level) could be a useful major leaguer after moving to an OF corner?

I don't remember who said it (Yogi Berra or Casey Stengel) and about whom - and I'll screw the quote up, but it went something like "So-and-so has a great swing. Any pitcher that grooves him a thigh high fastball is going to get killed. Anything except a thigh high fastball, he'll swing and miss, though". That's pretty much been the MO of Cubs offensive prospects... all tools, no growth.

Given the stagnation of Cub minor league hitters - I really wonder if it's at least as much teaching and development as it is talent recognition. For all their foibles - Hill, Choi, Patterson (and even guys like Kelton, to some extent) were well-regarded (or at least 'regarded') prospects in their time, but they stagnated. You have to wonder how much of the blame goes towards the Cubs minor league instruction. Sample size, sure -- but the one guy (Hinske) that at least somewhat "made it" - made it in another organization.

You look at a guy like Jeff Francouer, for example -- a hitter with poor plate discipline, but no worse than say.. Corey Patterson. Granted - we'll see what happens when Jeff's got a few more seasons under his belt - but when you look around the league, it just seems there are plenty of marginally disciplined batters that end up contributing something offensively at the major league level. Or take a guy like Morgan Ensberg... or Paul LoDuca... or heck, even a guy like Pedro Feliz.

Offensively speaking -
Other teams have top prospects that make it. Other teams have marginal prospects that make it. Other teams have non-prospects that make it.

The Cubs, however - don't. Maybe that'll change with say... a Ronny Cedeno carving out a Cesar Izturis line (certainly nothing to write home about) or Murton (who I think does look like a keeper) - but it's puzzling how everyone from a Harvey, Patterson, Hill, or Choi to a Sing, Mallory, Kelton, or whatever just seem to fail so miserably.

It would be interesting to see what say... that famed Lansing Lugnuts team of a few back would have turned into had it been the Braves or A's overseeing their development.
   55. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: June 09, 2006 at 02:04 PM (#2057533)
About time I did an update --

The Cubs are now 23-36. Between 1900-2005, there have been 77 teams with the same record.

None made the post-season (0%).

Furthermore, no team with a worse record made the post-season. The team with the worst record through 59 games to make the post-season was last year's Astros. They were 24-35, one game ahead of the Cubs at this point.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5290 seconds
53 querie(s) executed