For those who think Marquis Grissom isn't going to make this team.

by jolietconvict on Mar 2, 2006 11:49 PM CST

From Friday's Tribune:

Veteran outfielder Marquis Grissom doesn't have to put up big numbers to make the team, even though he is a non-roster invitee.

"He doesn't have to have a great spring," Baker said. "Spring training is for the young, especially early because they're in shape in no time and, No. 2, most young guys hit fastballs. Pitchers aren't ready to throw good breaking balls. It's hard to throw them here in Arizona because of the air."

Baker said he would evaluate Grissom by his health, speed and bat speed.

"You want to see progress as spring goes on," Baker said. "I have a pretty good idea of what he can do. I'm looking for just what he has left."

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I still can't see...

exactly what's wrong with Grissom making the team.

Yes, he would take a roster spot, but so what? He hits lefties quite well, has good enough speed/range to play any outfield spot at least moderately well, and probably can impart some knowledge of the game to the team. He's always played smart baseball over the years, so I don't see how that wouldn't be of some use to this squad.

And no, I honestly don't think Dusty will get him "400+ at-bats" or anything like that; we'd have to get hit with the injury plague to see anything along those lines...

by NocNoc on Mar 3, 2006 12:27 AM CST reply actions

i agree

i know there are a lot of people with visions of a game in mid-july with the dreaded perez-grissom combo in the 1&2 holes with blanco giving d-lee and a-ram "protection" in the 6th slot, but i think we can do a lot worse as far as a 5th outfield spot goes. as long as he is healthy and NOWHERE NEAR the everyday lineup, he could provide some nice veteran ledership.

by Bebo1060 on Mar 3, 2006 4:25 AM CST up reply actions

Who's spot is he taking?

I'm not exactly blown away by the concept of Grissom and his many miles taking up a roster spot...but I'm curious who everyone thinks is being bumped off of the roster by his presence?
You could argue that a rookie/young OF (Adam Greenberg?) is being denied the major league experience, but how much seasoning does a player get when they're buried on the roster as the 5th OF? To top it off, you'd be using up one of the player's options if they're eventually sent back down...

by Shawon O Meter on Mar 3, 2006 10:46 AM CST up reply actions

Who thinks

Grissom won't make this team?

Surely not me and in fact, I've gone on record saying that all Grissom has to do is have an "average" ST. The only way Grissom DOESN'T make this team is if he has a "terrible" ST.

I mean, it's rather obvious to me.

Cubs need a 5th OFer for those inevitable days that Cedeno will get a day off and Neifi will hit against a Leftie and Hairston will play 2nd.

In a nutshell, if Grissom makes the team, it essentially is a bad thing for Cedeno.

Pretty simple math to me, duuude.

by escapegoat on Mar 3, 2006 12:55 AM CST reply actions

my sentiments

exactly.

Plus I take a little bit of solice in the fact that he's been around the leauge and he has a few things to offer the rookies on the bench, granted not as much as Mr. Maddux, but still there can be a little learned off (Grissom) in the mean time.

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Mar 3, 2006 7:36 AM CST up reply actions

I would agree...

... yes, he had a poor year last year, but he was injured.

If he could play as a part-timer the way he hit in 2004, that'd be fine with me. As noted, he does hit lefties pretty well.

by Al Yellon on Mar 3, 2006 8:14 AM CST up reply actions

i'd go you one further

and say that he has a chance to supplant murton and start in left.

his defense will be superior to murton's -- little question of that, i think. but offensively, it could be a closer-run thing than people think.

murton was blistering hot last season, but he isn't going to hit lhp to the tune of .380 for long. and he's going to end up seeling a lot more rhp, against which his line (despite his torrid spell) was 260/330/480.

grissom, fwiw, is only a season removed from 280/330/450 with 22 hr and 90 rbi.

i think it's a closer race than many people think. i don't know that it's "bad" or "good" -- if grissom produces -- but murton could easily find himself on the outs in dustyville.

by gaius marius on Mar 3, 2006 11:10 AM CST up reply actions

If...

Grissom makes the team, I would be OK with it. But if he takes away Orange Guy's job, I would not like him.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Mar 3, 2006 11:39 AM CST up reply actions

torrid?

his numbers last year are not out of line from his minor league numbers (.309/.380/.451 ).

The nice thing about grissom is that, if healthy, he could paly all 3 outfield positions, which is a nice quality in a 4th or 5th outfielder.

i don't think you really think grissom will be the left fielder. that's just what you would have to say to get the biggest reaction out of people here, which sometimes i think is your main objective.

don't worry sparkles, red hair guy is in.

by tomas21 on Mar 3, 2006 1:29 PM CST up reply actions

to be fair

the kid his 7 homers in 140 ab after hitting 8 in 313 ab at west tenn earlier that year and 11 in 376 ab at sarasota the previous year. doubling your dinger rate is HOT! :)

again, i don't question murton's pedigree -- he's a first-rounder and has had a really nice minor league career. i think he's the cub left fielder for years to come. one of the bright spots in what i see as a pretty dismal situation overall.

but it's a LOT to expect of a kid to put up 300/380/520 or whatever people are expecting. that's roty stuff (though he's not eligible). hope he does it -- but expect 270/340/440.

by gaius marius on Mar 3, 2006 2:22 PM CST up reply actions

and i'm quite serious

about grissom. i don't consider the possibility "shocking" or whatever. vets top kids all the time.

hey -- if he can show 2005 was just a bad year and hit his 2002-2004 form -- which is 280/320/470, 20hr, 80rbi -- with his defense he's going to make a strong push for starting time. and dusty will probably be his ally. imo, much depends on whether or not grissom has "lost it" or not. at 39, it's possible but far from mandatory.

we'll have to see about that last bit. but i won't be surprised at all to see grissom share time with murton in left and even push him out.

by gaius marius on Mar 3, 2006 2:28 PM CST up reply actions

Ron Santo

said yesterday during the pre-game that Grissom had an excellent shot at making the team.

And just for the update, he is still pronouncing it "Harriston", with the occasional "Harrison" thrown in.

by TC Cubby on Mar 3, 2006 9:55 AM CST reply actions

Man, do I miss Ronne & Pat

That's it - I'm going to get XM this afternoon!

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Mar 3, 2006 10:55 AM CST up reply actions

Missing Pat Hughes.............

..........is understandable, but Ron Santo has to be one of the worst announcers in the history of sports.

Get XM for sure. When the Cubs are on the road you will get the home team announcers, thereby saving you from having to listen Santo's dribble on WGN.

by tville on Mar 3, 2006 11:12 AM CST up reply actions

I agree...

Gotta love Santo for his passion and what he has gone through but it is very painful listening to him. It's embarrassing.

by SonnyJ9 on Mar 3, 2006 11:18 AM CST up reply actions

If he'd just take the time.............

..........to read a media guide, at least he'd have some idea about the teams involved in the game.

Embarrassing is a good word; insulting is an even better word because he's being paid to do a job we'd all likely love to have!

by tville on Mar 3, 2006 2:52 PM CST up reply actions

If I had the job...

I would do it exactly the way he does it. That's why I love Ronnie.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Mar 3, 2006 3:29 PM CST up reply actions

You're too young..............

............Sparkles, to already be seeking a lobotomy.

Your baseball acumen is already superior to Santo's, so you'd have to give up part of your frontal lobe to dummy-down.

Besides, such surgery would likely leave a scar and you're much too young to be carved up.

by tville on Mar 3, 2006 4:29 PM CST up reply actions

Oh no...

that would be bad. I am too young.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Mar 3, 2006 4:37 PM CST up reply actions

i suppose it depends on what

you want out of your announcers. personally, i love the passion santo brings to announcing. so i don't get any real insight from him. how much insight are you really looking for? there's plenty of time for analysis after the game.

i think i'd have a different view if santo ever presented himself as some kind of expert, but he doesn't pretend to be anything more than a die hard fan.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Mar 3, 2006 6:50 PM CST up reply actions

I guess I seek............

..........more than passion. Let's face it, we are all fairly passionate about the Cubs, and truth be known, many of us have a better grasp of the game right now than Santo.

I've seen a number of folks in other posts on this site praise Steve Stone. Is it possible to get more polar opposites than Stone and Santo? One knows so much and adds it well while the other is lucky to know the starting line ups?

by tville on Mar 4, 2006 4:03 PM CST up reply actions

By all means...

... get XM. Its great to find other broadcasters that you like and get a chance to listen to them. Today was a great example for me. I got to hear part of the Twins - Reds game and listen to John Gordon and Dan Gladden, who do a great job on Twins radio.

DmL

by dmlichte on Mar 3, 2006 9:07 PM CST up reply actions

I was originally

against he idead of Grissom getting any significant playing time, but if he really does have something left in the tank he, as it has been stated, could be a decent bench option.

You can't really base anything on his 05 season since he was hurt, but he posted a .315/.356/.577 line against LHP in 2004. Something along those lines this season would be wonderful.

"The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers." - Earl Weaver

by VS on Mar 3, 2006 11:10 AM CST reply actions

I realize that it's bad form...

...to agree with Dusty, but isn't that exactly what he should be looking for? If Grissom's legs are in good shape, and he can still run, and he still turn on a fastball, then he can be a useful (albeit) small part of a good team. Dusty is too diplomatic to use the "P" word, but, if Grissom is on the team, then I'd expect that Jones' days off might just happen to fall on games where the Cubs are facing a tough lefty, and that Grissom would spell him on those occasions. Also, I'd assume that, in order for Grissom to make the team, two things have to happen. The first is that he has to demonstrate that he's physically capable (see above), and the second is that the team has to be constructed in such a way that there's a place for him. His fate may really depend on Todd Walker's knee. If Walker is traded, or if his knee keeps him from being effective, and Hairston become the starting second baseman (with Perez backing up both middle infield positions), then there's a greater need for a bench OF. On the other hand, in the event that the Cubs break camp with both Hairston and Walker, then Hairston is still in the OF mix, and that's a less pressing need. Then there's the 11 vs. 12 pitcher question...

by Slats Grobnik on Mar 3, 2006 11:11 AM CST reply actions

i hope you're right

Dusty is too diplomatic to use the "P" word, but, if Grissom is on the team, then I'd expect that Jones' days off might just happen to fall on games where the Cubs are facing a tough lefty, and that Grissom would spell him on those occasions.

but they had burnitz out there for 158 games last year and his split vs lhp was 236/268/445. in fact, burnitz got more at-bats vs lhp (182) than any other cub.

i think the more important split is 3 years/$16mm. jacque is going to see plenty of lhp.

chances are better that grissom will see a lot of time in left, imo.

by gaius marius on Mar 3, 2006 11:16 AM CST up reply actions

The difference is, of course...

... that there wasn't anyone on the 2005 Cubs like Grissom, who could have replaced Burnitz against LH.

With the public commitment to Murton, and the fact that Grissom is 39 years old, I cannot see him playing LF except on an occasional basis.

by Al Yellon on Mar 3, 2006 11:27 AM CST up reply actions

yeeea, the thing about that

is that he's played six games in right in nine years. i'm not sure he counts as a rightfield option any more than hairston or macias did last year.

and public commitment, as you know, counts for very little with this ballclub -- as it should. they were publicly committed to hollandsworth and dubois last year too.

by gaius marius on Mar 3, 2006 11:45 AM CST up reply actions

note too that

in the intrasquad scrim, grissom started in left for the b team.

by gaius marius on Mar 3, 2006 11:54 AM CST up reply actions

moreover

that he's 39 may actually work to his advantage in dustyland.

one of my friends is down in mesa and watched the morning workouts. he called me to share a laugh about the fact that grissom was in the workout group with pierre and jones, murton being with the reserves.

i'm just saying -- don't be surprised if it happens. murton is just a kid like any other.

by gaius marius on Mar 3, 2006 11:49 AM CST up reply actions

No he isn't...

Murton is not just a kid like any other. He has incredible red hair. Doesn't Dusty see that? That alone should make him better than Grissom. Does Grissom have cool hair? I don't think so. :)

I may not be surprised if that happens, but I will be mad.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Mar 3, 2006 11:55 AM CST up reply actions

i'll probably be

a bit disgusted. but, in the grand scheme, the cubs have a lot of players headed to f/a after this year without a ton of help coming through in the minors. this may be their best chance (such as it is) for a while. they probably should be thinking short term. murton can always play next year.

by gaius marius on Mar 3, 2006 11:57 AM CST up reply actions

But...

I want him to play nooooooooow.

They should be thinking short and long term. I'm young and want to watch a winner now and in the long life ahead of me.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Mar 3, 2006 12:03 PM CST up reply actions

Several things

First off, Gaius, I really hope you're wrong about Murton and Grissom being close becasue i have based my acceptance of the nomar fiasdco here on my belief that Murton will be another Jeff Franceour...secondly...as far as Ronny is concerned, I love the guy for what he is...and that is a blundering, simple minded fool who loves the Cubs, it kind of makes him more loveable...and thanks TC Cubby for the Hariston/Harrison update...I think it is so funny how simple the names are that he can't get are...finally, after listening yesterday, it feels like Jock is going to be one of those "change of scenery" guys that ultimately succeeds here...I said feel so please don't tell me it is too soon...people were "feeling" things all winter long.

Oh yeah, I gotta say that it is so nice not to have Patterson anywhere on the field though Brian Corey gave me a bit of a painful deja vu dor a second!

Anyone can have a bad century...

by Kinky Reggae on Mar 3, 2006 11:58 AM CST reply actions

I've been trying...

... to parse what Dusty said. I just do not understand this statement:

"Spring training is for the young, especially early because they're in shape in no time and, No. 2, most young guys hit fastballs. Pitchers aren't ready to throw good breaking balls. It's hard to throw them here in Arizona because of the air."

I sincerely do not understand what he's saying here. Why exactly is spring training for the young? They're in shape and older players aren't? Well then don't old people need spring training more than young people? I really cannot fathom what Dusty is saying here and this one falls in line with comments like "D.Lee has more moving parts".

DmL

by dmlichte on Mar 3, 2006 9:05 PM CST reply actions

LOL!

What? D-Lee has more moving parts? When did he say that?

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Mar 3, 2006 9:39 PM CST up reply actions

Last spring

Dusty was commenting on Lee's slow start from the year before. Dusty said that it takes Lee longer to get started because he has more moving parts.

DmL

by dmlichte on Mar 3, 2006 10:15 PM CST up reply actions

Definitely...

do not remember that.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Mar 3, 2006 10:34 PM CST up reply actions

and

what are 'moving parts'?

2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Mar 4, 2006 10:51 AM CST up reply actions

Good question...

and I have no idea.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Mar 4, 2006 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

I think what Dusty's saying here...

Is that young players do tend to get in-shape quicker, and thus you can be a bit more subjective about their Spring Training performance. Older players needs more time to get into their groove, or so it's seemed over the years, so you can't hold them to the same standard of subjectivity.

As far as the fastball comment, he's stressing that young guys tend to be good at hitting straight fastballs, and during the first few weeks of Sprint Training, they'll get the chance to see a LOT of fastballs, so it's worth it for them to get more at-bats.

So, that being said, I can see why Dusty would make a statement like that; Spring Training isn't really quire as important for the older players. I don't think it means Grissom is going to get a free pass, though, if he can't perform at all.

by NocNoc on Mar 4, 2006 2:50 PM CST up reply actions

but...

... if it takes longer for older players to get into shape, than wouldn't it stand to reason that spring training is actually for the older players?

DmL

by dmlichte on Mar 5, 2006 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

Not necessarily.

Older players tend to be, if nothing else, somewhat set in their ways, which means that most coaches and scouts have a pretty good idea of what their abilities are.

Which, if you re-read Dusty's comments, is pretyt much what he's saying, actually. He knows what Grissom's abilities are, already, and he really just needs to see if he's going to be able to harness those abilities productively, or if he's too old to be useful. I believe he wants to "see if he's got anything left in the tank," as it were.

I'm NOT saying that older players don't need or can't benefit from Spring Training, but they certainly don't have to prove their abilities to the same extent that a younger, more inexperienced player might. You don't have a good idea what to expect out of a Ronny Cedeno at the Major League level, but you can surely have a good idea what to expect out of a Marquis Grissom.

And for the record, I don't expect anything terribly dreadful from him, so I'm all for his making the team.

by NocNoc on Mar 6, 2006 9:02 PM CST up reply actions

Heh heh heh.

I was wondering how long it would take the folks here to come to terms with Grissom on the roster. Not long after all.

I was probably more surprised at how quickly everybody went from "no way he makes the team, stop worrying" to "yeah, it's no big deal - he'll be fine."

Took about two weeks........

Who says Cubs fans are content with mediocrity?

"Bite my shiny metal ass!" -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

by The Jade Scorpion on Mar 6, 2006 8:36 AM CST reply actions