A Summation Of A Lost Season

by Al Yellon on Sep 3, 2006 5:44 PM CDT in Chicago Cubs Recaps

Today, the Cubs pretty much did everything that they've been doing wrong all year. If you've missed the season to date (and you'd probably have had a happier summer if you had), here's what happened today:

A Cubs pitcher left the game due to injury
That pitcher, plus two others, gave up six of the opponent's seven runs after two were out
A Cubs baserunner made a bad baserunning play, squelching a rally where the tying run was at the plate
The bullpen came in and coughed up a lead, and later on put the game out of reach
Poor outfield defense and throws allowed at least one opposition run to score

Stop me when you've had enough. The Giants beat the Cubs 7-4 today in a game that, as the cliche meter rises, "wasn't as close as the score indicated", and also lasted about an hour too long for most of our tastes.

The weather was nice, although as Mike and I noted in the seventh inning, about 3:45, the sun is now at a low enough angle that it disappears behind the upper deck in the late innings, putting us in shadow. This will likely make it quite cool in the new corner of the LF bleachers as September goes on.

Yes, September has to go on. Twenty-six games remain, seventeen of them against teams who are currently within five games of a playoff berth, believe it or not (the only ones that aren't: the final homestand vs. Milwaukee and Colorado, and "The Battle For Last Place" this week against Pittsburgh). So there will be meaningful baseball played at Wrigley Field, and by the Cubs on the road, the next four weeks, and there will be interesting things to watch:

The Cubs have three games against the Phillies in their launching pad in Philadelphia. Ryan Howard hit three homers today off Atlanta pitching. How many do you think he can hit off this monstrously bad Cub staff?
Greg Maddux, as of now, is tentatively penciled in to pitch Thursday, September 14 at Wrigley Field for the NL West-leading Dodgers. This will happen if Grady Little keeps Maddux on an every-fifth-day rotation (the Dodgers have an off day a week from tomorrow), and based on what I've heard, he appears inclined to do this.
Carlos Zambrano, the lone bright spot in this misbegotten season, still has a chance, with five starts remaining, to lead the league in wins and win the Cy Young Award.

So there are things to look forward to, even in a season as horribly bad as this one has become, and we also look forward to October 2, which is the day we assume Jim Hendry will announce that Dusty Baker will not have his contract extended. (If not 10/2, then shortly thereafter.)

Today, even though Dusty Baker played Ryan Theriot and Matt Murton (likely having been ordered to do so from above; I can't imagine him not wanting to play the platoon boys, Bynum and Pagan, against a RHP), it didn't matter. Theriot did draw a walk, and so did Murton, and Murton doubled, but it was all for naught. Angel Guzman -- before he left the game with yet another Cub Pitcher Officially Licensed Arm Injury -- did lay down a very, very nice squeeze bunt, at the time giving the Cubs a 3-1 lead.

After Guzman left the game -- and after two separate trainer visits, and Dave pointed out that Aramis Ramirez was the ONLY infielder who didn't join the mound conference -- Michael Wuertz, who threw twenty pitches yesterday, came in and promptly walked Steve Finley, gave up a booming triple to Omar Vizquel (who tripled another run in later off Ryan Dempster), and a HR to Shea Hillenbrand, and that was pretty much it.

Has Dusty Baker learned NOTHING from the past? Michael Wuertz is a good pitcher. But he cannot go two days in a row. I'd even have taken Glendon Rusch (GASP! Yes, Rusch) or Will Ohman in that situation, given that the first two hitters up were left-handed. It was almost as if Baker were trying to help his old team into the postseason by giving them this game. I did say "almost", just in case you think that's a real accusation, which it's not.

The final indignity was yet another baserunning blunder by Ronny Cedeno, who attempted to move up a base with two out and a run already in (on a Derrek Lee PH sac-fly which he JUST missed hitting for a grand slam), and Angel Pagan at bat. Dave said, correctly so, that NO runner should attempt to move up unless he is absolutely certain he can make it, in a situation like that. Eliezer Alfonzo, the Giants' catcher, is a fine defensive receiver, and the ball didn't get that far away -- and once again, I have to ask, where was Gary Matthews? He seemed asleep yesterday on the pickoff of Ryan Theriot, and again today on this play.

This forced Baker to keep Pagan in the game -- not that it was such a great loss to double-switch Jacque Jones out -- because if he'd have put Dempster in the #9 slot, where Pagan was pinch-hitting, he would have had to use his last available man, Freddie Bynum (since John Mabry was not available today) to bat for Dempster in the bottom of the ninth. Yeah, I know, "and death is not an option".

It ought to be for this team. The extremely uncomfortable surgery undergone by Michael Barrett today likely puts Barrett out for the year. Barrett ought to be happy he doesn't have to play through this morass the rest of September. Dave said, and I agree, that the Cubs might want to consider moving him to left field and getting a better defensive catcher to platoon with Henry Blanco. Playing LF would likely help Barrett's bat, since he wouldn't have to think about catching defense, plus it would eliminate the wear and tear on his body.

It's something to mull in terms of improving this team.

Here's another deal we concocted -- and no, there aren't any rumors or sources, but I'd do this deal if the Red Sox would; they seem less than enamored with Manny Ramirez at times. Would you do this? Sign Aramis Ramirez to an extension, then trade him, Felix Pie and Rich Hill to the Red Sox for Manny and Mike Lowell?

I think I would. At some point you've got to make bold moves, because this is absolutely the worst Cub team in my lifetime. Even the 1966 team -- which lost 103 games -- had three Hall of Famers. The 1980 team had a good pitcher in Rick Reuschel and a batting title winner in Bill Buckner. Only the awful 1981 team, which was saved from a 100+ loss season by the strike, compares in its stinkitude to this one.

You'll note I have nothing to say about Barry Bonds and his 729th career HR, which came after Baker left the lefty Les Walrond (we decided his name sounds like the guy who runs the corner gas station -- "Walrond's Shell") in to throw to him. He was roundly booed, but the booing seemed more subdued than yesterday's.

Four weeks to go. Then the reconstruction begins.

e-mail this page

Tweet Comment 61 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'd make

that trade. I don't think the Red Sox would. While the Red Sox have been willing to trade Manny Ramirez, they've always focused on getting even value for him. And getting only Pie and Hill for Manny would leave the Red Sox as dead meat for the Yankees next season, which is unacceptable in Boston.

Now if we had Aramis Ramirez under contract and wanted to trade him to Boston for Manny, they'd probably do that. But I don't think we would.

by Josh Timmers on Sep 3, 2006 5:51 PM CDT reply actions

Fantasy land

What could possibly make you think that Aramis Ramiez would sign an extension with the Cubs in which he would not protect himself with a no-trade clause?

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Sep 3, 2006 6:01 PM CDT reply actions

You could be right, but...

... let's say that a trade to the Red Sox were part of an Aramis contract agreement extension. This sort of thing could be negotiated.

by Al Yellon on Sep 3, 2006 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions

That's possible, but

why would Aramis Ramirez do that? Why not just go ahead and sign with the Red Sox as a free agent? It's not like Mike Lowell is a great catch - if the Red Sox had ARam, they'd be happy to dump Lowell on whatever team was foolish enough to eat all or most of his contract.

On a related note, can you imagine the Red Sox with a 3-4-5 of Ramirez, Ortiz and Ramirez? With Ortiz protecting Manny, we could see an historic season.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Sep 3, 2006 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Barrett to 2B?

He played 3B in the minors, and it's not like the Cubs have anyone who's a real every day 2B right now.

AC036198

by gjdow on Sep 3, 2006 6:16 PM CDT reply actions

Barrett....

... wasn't a very good 3B when he tried to play it early in his career with the Expos. At age 30, I don't think a switch to 2B would be a very good idea.

LF, though -- he ought to be able to handle that.

by Al Yellon on Sep 3, 2006 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions

A note on Bonds

Al, something you probably missed part of due to your vantage point in the back of the left field bleachers was a small thing that impressed me more than his opposite field blast. In the third inning Murton doubled down the left field line with Jacque Jones on third. When the ball was hit, I assumed that Jones would score (it was obvious there was no way the ball was going to get caught so he was able to take off right away). Bonds, on bad knees and 42 years old got to the ball and threw the ball perfectly to the cutoff man. Jones didn't score on the play - didn't even try.

It wasn't a great play, but it was a good one. What struck me about it was that even at his age and with the bad knees, Bonds just doesn't make mistakes. At least not on the field. Off the field, he should have hidden his steroid use at least as well as the likely hundreds of players whose steroid use hasn't been the focus multiple federal investigations and the significant resources of a major newspaper.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Sep 3, 2006 6:21 PM CDT reply actions

Not to be a prick...seriously!

Al isn't interested in what Bonds does well. Most people aren't, unfortunately. It's about taking down the big guy and most fans would love to see the biggest guy fall EVEN if it does not improve the steroid problem in baseball, which it won't. I'm not sure if Al's ever said anything about the steroid issue unless he's talking about Bonds. To him (I do not mean any disrespect, Al!), and many other fans, it's an issue that begins and ends with Barry Bonds. I find this to be more troubling than the steroid issue itself on many levels. This kind of behavior by fans is a representation of what we feel is important in society. Sure, improving the game is undoubtedly on Al's list of things and there's no doubt he believes getting rid of steroids will help the game, but his and many others' actions say otherwise. I've long said that this is an issue about Barry Bonds and nothing else. It is.

While most of the fans I speak of undoubtedly would like to see steroids gone from the game altogether, most, if not all, of them will turn a blind eye the day Barry Bonds leaves this game because to them, the issue is Barry Bonds.

I'm glad to see Al has said that he's not in favor of asterisks by his numbers as he's said before. I assume this is still true. I believe Al is in the minority among the masses who hate Bonds while using the cover of his steroid use as the reason for it.

I've not heard Al, or anyone else for that matter, spew the venom they have at Barry Bonds for Marion Jones or Floyd Landis. I've not heard it directed at Lance Armstrong and considering the amount of evidence available that suggests he used steroids is equally as overwhelming as it is against Bonds, it's all the proof I need.

This is not about baseball. It's not about steroids. It's sure as hell not about the integrity of the game considering the integrity of those I'm speaking of wouldn't even match up with Bonds. It's sure as hell not about the doping problem in sports. And it's sure as hell not about the possibility/certainty that young athletes will begin to dope to get the same edge that they think they need to succeed. This is about Barry Bonds, and quite frankly, saying it's about anything else is utterly laughable.

The truly sad part about all of this is that far too many are allowing their hatred of Bonds to miss one of the game's all-time greats. He's not what he once was, but he's still one of the smartest players in this game. It's unfortunate they are unable to just sit back and enjoy Bonds while he finishes out his career.

And please don't anybody give me this "Bonds is an asshole" crap. You root for pricks, wife beaters, assholes, and dumbasses all day long so it doesn't hold ANY water whatsoever.

by Maddog on Sep 3, 2006 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes, it does hold water...

Character issues does affect my favoritism. I don't like Kobe for his scandal (although I don't think he raped her), I lose respect for Big Mac after his court trial, Jason Kidd when he beat his wife...the list goes on and on of players I quit caring about. That's where it started with Bonds; reports of infidelity, rumors of treatment of teammates, attitude towards fans etc. That's why there is so much animosity for him; it isn't strictly the steroids. Do you think McGwire would get the same treatment (his testimony aside)? Hell no. Would he be cheered and praised like he used to? No. He'd hear some boos, but it would be nothing like Barry. Barry has asked for the abuse he receives.

However, your point about Barry and the steroids is dead on. Too many fans see Barry as the problem; obviously that isn't the case. Barry has just become the icon for the steroid era and everyone wants him to go down, as they assume the steroid era would end with that. I might be way too paranoid, but I think steroids are all over baseball. Pitchers, catchers, i don't trust the testing for a minute.

The shame, as has been said, is that Barry was such a great player before juicing...it is too bad he's come to this. I hate Barry because of his character, not because he used steroids.

Extreme hopes are born from extreme misery. -Bertrand Russell

by thekansasian on Sep 3, 2006 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm not talking about the boos

I'm talking about the real issue here and it's not steroids.

And if you're going to dislike every athlete for being an ass, then the short list of people worthy of your fandom is not a long list. It's a very safe assumption to assume they're all a bunch of selfish asshole pricks in it for themselves and themselves only and they don't care one bit about how they get there or stay there. That's professional sports.

by Maddog on Sep 3, 2006 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Indeed...

most athletes, unfortunately, are pretty much assholes. But not all of them are. And what I don't know can't hurt me. I support those I can respect. I think there are many in the game who aren't pricks or assholes or whatever you want to call them. Not a majority, but I think there are many.

As for Bonds, he's a prick (as you say). No doubt about it. I despise him for the things he has done. But not for taking steroids.

Extreme hopes are born from extreme misery. -Bertrand Russell

by thekansasian on Sep 4, 2006 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions

Geez

And to assume that the majority all of professional athletes are pricks without any proof, do you cover all sports? what is your inside knowledge? what scoop do you have that the rest of us are so misinformed? I just don't think your generalization has any merit.

Throw out your Gold Teeth and see how they Roll

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Sep 4, 2006 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions

I disagree

with your generalization about the fans. I can only speak for myself and maybe 500 other people that I have discussed the issue with over a long period of time.

To many of us, Bonds is a symbol of what is wrong in baseball and other sports and politics and business. We see a known cheater attain recognition for something that is illegal. I'm offended that Hank Aaron could lose the title that he earned. If you can accept that, so be it. But I can't and many others cannot. I was appalled when Ken Lay stole money from his stockholders and employees. He was a symbol just as Bonds.

We can't fix all the steroid problems but we can fix Bonds' attempt to steal something he's not entitled to gain.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 3, 2006 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions

What's he stealing?

A home run title from someone you believe is clean? I assume this means you believe Hank never took any greenies, right? They are illegal, after all.

There is no title. Barry doesn't get a belt to wear around his waste if he passes Aaron or anything. he holds a record that's open to interpretation. Hank's record is open to interpretation. No way on earth is he number one if Ruth isn't pitching the first 5 years of his career. That's my interpretation of it and if you'd like to say that Hank is the "clean" champion (ignoring his use of amphetamines of course) then so be it.

Baseball is a game of eras. Stats during one era are less impressive than another one. that's just one of the things that makes this such a great game.

by Maddog on Sep 3, 2006 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions

Couple of things

I do not root for wife beaters, ass-----, and other criminals, unfortunately they are part of sports as in soceity.
I guess I am in the minority,( sarcasam, Bond haters are in the majority) I don't root for Bonds for several reasons. Steriods is one, two, his attitude that he his above baseball. Hey Barry come clean. And an all time great, MY opinion, I'll take Mays, Mantle, Williams, Ruth before Bonds.
I don't root for Marion Jones, Armstrong, Landis, half the Bengals team, Micheal Irvin, and the rest lawbreakers.
And young people do want that edge, they see what the "roids" will do and they emulate the roid boys. If you don't think so, you haven't spent any time around high school athletes, I have. They see no consequence, they see results in strength and power.

And lastly, trust me, I have played college ball, coached baseball, been around it for 42 years. I am not missing anything with Bonds.
Bye Bye Barry.

Throw out your Gold Teeth and see how they Roll

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Sep 3, 2006 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Mays

Interesting that you put Mays on so high a pedestal given that it is well known that he used a liquid form of amphetamines and even distributed it to his teammates.

Do a search for Willie Mays and amphetamines or Willie Mays and red juice and you can learn more about it.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Sep 3, 2006 9:36 PM CDT up reply actions

I am not putting Mays on a pedestal

just a better player than Bonds. I am 49, first I have heard about Mays and amphetamines. If this is true, well I guess that is one of the reason he supports his godson so much.
And Yes it would tarnish my opinion of Mays.
I just don't get it, People actually going out there way to see Bonds play, when we all know he is/was on the juice.
And I don't look at it as he is the only one. Sure there are tons that juice, I wouldn't root for or respect them either. Bonds is just the man going after the most sought after number in sports, that makes him a target even more.

Throw out your Gold Teeth and see how they Roll

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Sep 3, 2006 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions

also

So today instead of amphetamines, today they are drinking Red Bull, no difference. As Mike Schimdt said in his book, no amphetamines, just drink more coffee.

Steriods is much different.

Throw out your Gold Teeth and see how they Roll

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Sep 3, 2006 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions

for most people..

there is a HUGE difference between amphetamines and coffee. for those who have never tried speed, it is vastly more potent and is chemically much different. I tried it back in my college days and a pot of coffee was nothing compared to one speed tablet. just sayin', as they say.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Sep 3, 2006 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Afraid it's true

One commonly cited story is the courtroom testimony given under oath by former player at a trial related to the Pittsburgh Pirates drug scandals. Milner was a teammate of Mays' with the Mets and he testified that he used some of Mays' "red juice," a drink made up of amphetamines and fruit juice.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Sep 3, 2006 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions

It's about steroids.

Or, I should say, about Bonds use of steroids. If Bonds used amphetamines, these people would be going whacko over amphetamines. If it's believed smoking makes you stronger, they'd go nuts over it. They'd do this, of course, while ignoring anything else that may be illegal. "Amphetamines don't help you like they do steroids" That's the reasoning from 99% of the people I'm sure.

by Maddog on Sep 4, 2006 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions

Amen

by BlueBooHoo on Sep 3, 2006 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Maddog

I agree 100%. It's truly stunning that in the steroids era, people get so worked up over the steroid use of one player. I know of no respected baseball person who has come out and said they do not believe that a substantial percentage of players have used. And many, like Thomas Boswell and Buster Olney, have said they think it was (is?) widespread.

Bonds is, as you said, one of the best of all time. I went to the game today for the sole purpose of watching him play. I went to the game on Friday so I had my Cubs fix for a few days and I had my fantasty football draft at 4:45. I knew I couldn't stay for the whole game, but since I live six blocks from the park, there was no reason not to go. The defensive play I described above and the home run made it well worth the $10 I paid for a ticket (yes, $10 for a ticket - there is one very tangible benefit of the Cubs being horrible).

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Sep 3, 2006 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions

Stunning is a good way to describe it.

Shock is the feeling I had when this whole BALCO case broke a couple years ago. I expect the talking heads on the radio to go nuts. It's their job, but I really did not expect the fans of this game to go as looney as they have over this. It shocked me. I can't for the life of me understand it.

It is not about steroids as they all pretend. I actually think many have convinced themselves that is why they believe what they do, but it's not. You know this. I know this. The "experts" in the game know this. They just want somebody to fall and sadly, I don't believe most of them care one bit if it has any positive affect on doping in sports today. I really don't.

They're blood-thirsty, and they can't wait for the powerful to fall.

I don't know Bonds. I've never met the man and only know what I've read, which, doesn't paint a good picture. I just don't really care what kind of a person he is when it comes to appreciating how damn good he has been in his career at playing baseball.

I think OJ is probably guilty of murder, but that doesn't change the fact that he's one of the best running backs in history.

The other thing that gets me is that people think testing is solving the problem. There are at least 10 designer steroids available that are undetectable. Those who WERE taking are STILL taking steroids. 76 minor league players were suspended for testing positive in 2005 and almost none of them were top prospects. They were fringe prospects with no money probably taking the crap from Mexico. What about those 5 or 10 guys on each team that the organization has hopes for? What do you think their trainers are hooking them up with?

More people than will ever be known have taken steroids in this game. They have been around since World War II. So unless someone wants to go back and find EVERY single player that used between then and now, let's move forward.

Let's find a way to put a stop to it NOW and let the statisticians and other baseball fans do with the stats what they please.

Most importantly, how can one watch Barry and not be impressed? That's hard to figure out considering some of the other scum they undoubtedly root for.

by Maddog on Sep 4, 2006 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions

You're right...

... that the stats will be interpreted in the future, any way that future historians will wish to do so.

Your OJ comparison is irrelevant. What he did or didn't do in 1994 has nothing to do with his football career.

Taking steroids has EVERYTHING to do with Bonds' baseball career. There is no doubt that Barry Bonds was a great player before 1999, when he first apparently decided to begin taking steroids (in the 1998 off-season). That's what I've said repeatedly -- that it's a shame he felt he had to do this to get recognition, because he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer had he never played a single game after 1998.

I guess I'd have more respect for him if he came clean, told the truth, said he was sorry, and would tell young kids not to take steroids because of the health problems they can and do cause in later years. But then, I suppose he'd be leaving himself open to a perjury charge if he did that.

It's a sad and sorry situation. If you haven't read "Game of Shadows", I suggest you do so.

You appear to claim that steroids have been used in baseball since World War II. I have never heard that before; most writing on the issue dates the popularity of steroids to the mid-1970's, when that guy who's now governor of California (and he HAS admitted doing steroids) popularized their use.

Finally, you say "Let's find a way to put a stop to it NOW and let the statisticians and other baseball fans do with the stats what they please."

Isn't that exactly what we are doing here?

by Al Yellon on Sep 4, 2006 4:37 AM CDT up reply actions

The OJ comparison

is very much relevant. People on here, and many other places for that matter, consistently say one of the reasons they despise Bonds is because he's an ass. The Kasasian was very brave to admit that he dislikes him because he's an ass and not because he used steroids. I suspect that if people were honest with themselves they'd find that they too dislike him because he's an ass and not because he used steroids.

This is not a problem for one player and it should not be a problem for one player to go through. This is a problem of the entire sport of baseball, the entire world of sports, and who did and who did not is irrelevant. Unless you can honestly say that you look at every athlete as if he's guilty and then treat him the same way you do Bonds, it's unfair. Many, many, many baseball players have used and still use steroids. I imagine that Bonds is one of very many stars in this game who have used steroids.

The treatment of Bonds and the dislike for him is insane. He's done NOTHING that many other players haven't or will not do, but he's the ONE--the only one--you're after. Now this does not make it right. It merely puts it into perspective. Without it, Al, you have nothing. And that's what I despise more than anything.

This is, as I have said, about Barry Bonds and only Barry Bonds. The sooner people admit that, the sooner we can look forward to fixing the problem that is steroids and sports. Until then, it's a waste of time because those who say they want it out of the game only want Bonds out of the game.

by Maddog on Sep 4, 2006 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Al...

any funny ejections today? Did you guys chant "where's greg"? Any good signs?

Lets have the details.

by Thelonious on Sep 3, 2006 6:41 PM CDT reply actions

Well...

... if there had been any details to give, I'd have given them. I did pass along the "where's Greg" info to those sitting closer to Bonds in the first few rows. Don't know if they chanted or not. There were no signs that I could see today; the asterisk people weren't there, and as far as I could tell, there were no ejections.

Yeah, I know, boring. But that's what happened.

by Al Yellon on Sep 3, 2006 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions

Man-Ram is a......

first ballot HOF'er, he doesn't deserve to waste his time playing for this joke of an organization. Even if he did....I'd give it 3 weeks before some fans started complaining that "he doesn't hustle enough" if that's not enough Manny would probably only last til the ASB, where he would most likely demand a trade to a contender. Bad fit for this team.

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Sep 3, 2006 7:08 PM CDT reply actions

I don't know about Manny...

He doesn't seem like a good fit. And speculation is floating about him tanking the year now that the Red Sox are out...I think he's too flaky. You're right, that is not the type of player that would fit well with the Cubs.

Extreme hopes are born from extreme misery. -Bertrand Russell

by thekansasian on Sep 3, 2006 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Besides....

Manny's a 10-5 guy.....I'm pretty sure he would nix a trade to come here.

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Sep 3, 2006 7:09 PM CDT reply actions

Barrett

What convinces anyone that Barrett wouldn't be Hundley-like in left? He's not terribly quick, doesn't seem very athletic. Though the cubs offense from the outfield must get better, so should the defense. The cubs need to catch every ball they can to help what will still be a young staff next year. If Barrett's is thought of as a liability at catcher, he should be traded as his value would be the highest on the team. otherwise we need to improve his defense at catcher, as its the only position he can play.

by SamFels on Sep 3, 2006 7:15 PM CDT reply actions

As I have said before...

... Barrett could be the centerpiece of a deal that could, hopefully, bring Vernon Wells to the Cubs.

by Al Yellon on Sep 3, 2006 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions

If it's the same

Vernon Wells I'm thinking of, barring some kind of catastrophic breakdown with the Rangers, he's going to re-up with them. I keep hearing that he would like to be closer to his family, which are all in Texas.

Moving a good-hitting 28-year-old catcher while he has value is probably a good idea.

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

by scareduck on Sep 3, 2006 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions

trade barrett?

A team ranked last in major league baseball in runs scored should not be dealing one of their top offensive players. Sure I'd like a better defensive team, and while we're at it, I'd like a new car too. But in the real world, where our dismal team can only realistically improve in one category, it seems obvious that the Cubs' anemic offense should be the focal point for improvement.
Keep Barrett, trade Jacque Jones (FOR ANYTHING, even a ball park hot dog, just as long as we can dump his salary and his worthless @*) and throw some cash at Soriano/Lee for LF or RF (with Murton *starting, not platooning, in the other corner field spot.
Throw the rest of the cash at top CF free agent. Lofton and Edmonds may be old, both they continue to put up great numbers and are arguably improving over the past few years.

So we're stuck in a slump, it's only been a century...

by Old Style Heavy on Sep 3, 2006 7:26 PM CDT reply actions

Did you happen to notice...

... who I was proposing to acquire for Barrett? Vernon Wells, who is one of the top outfield offensive performers in the majors.

Given that Jim Edmonds possibly has post-concussion syndrome, that could end his season and his career, I'll steer clear.

Kenny Lofton is going to be 40 years old. No thank you. He'd be the guy who'd suddenly go south after Hendry gave him a two-year deal.

You underestimate the value of having a good defensive tandem behind the plate.

Barrett, Felix Pie and Rich Hill for Vernon Wells and Bengie Molina (or Gregg Zaun). That'd do it for me.

by Al Yellon on Sep 3, 2006 7:31 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't like that notion...

On two sides. First, I like having Barrett on the team. But the whole "Barrett vs. Blanco" debate has raged on for so long that I don't think any perspective is gained by rehashing it.

I do think, though, that it would be absolute folly to trade away Rich Hill for an offensive player. He's shown a LOT of promise on a team that desperately needs starting pitching -- I think the pitching has been more of a liability than the offense this year.

I think it would be acceptable if you put Hill in a deal that nets us a quality, veteran starting pitcher. But even then, I really, really worry that Hill would be the next D-Train.

by cwyers on Sep 3, 2006 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions

I love Barrett...

He is one of my favorites...but Vernon Wells is one of those guys that would make a trade of MB worthwhile. I don't want to get rid of Barrett, but if the deal is right then I am more than game.

Extreme hopes are born from extreme misery. -Bertrand Russell

by thekansasian on Sep 3, 2006 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions

Trade?!

Al that trade is truly awful. I mean really. Quite. Bad.

by FukudomeAtLarge on Sep 3, 2006 7:35 PM CDT reply actions

Why?

Be specific.

by Al Yellon on Sep 3, 2006 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions

I doubt

any team would seriously consider trading for Barrett to be their catcher. I may be wrong, but he's as bad as Piazza without the stick. Not even the Dodgers would have stuck with Piazza if he was a light-hitting catcher who played absolutey horrific defense.

Barrett doesn't give the Cubs in LF that Murton already does. In fact, it's probably more likely that Murton would hit for a higher batting average and a higher on-base percentage. At least in another year or two that would be the case. Barrett has a little more pop, but if we're looking to upgrade LF by only 5 or 6 home runs, well, why bother?

Barrett represents the same problem in LF that Murton does. Not enough power. We can't afford to not have power at the traditional power positions if/when this team can contend.

Personally, I'd see if Murton can develop a little power. Play him there everyday until the end of the 2008 season and if he hasn't shown some progression, it's time to move on.

by Maddog on Sep 3, 2006 7:57 PM CDT reply actions

AL teams...

would certainly be more inclined to acquire Barrett, splitting his duties between C and DH. I don't think you can dismiss Barrett's numbers though. He is an upgrade over Murton. However, we could save some bucks by taking Murton over Barrett. But Barrett is better than Murton; a move to the OF could even help his stats as he wouldn't have the responsibilities and physical wear from catching.

I love Barrett but I would love to pick up a big piece using him in a package.

Extreme hopes are born from extreme misery. -Bertrand Russell

by thekansasian on Sep 3, 2006 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions

I think

right now Barrett is better offensively, but he's at the age where the declining years lie in front of him and with the years he's spent behind the plate they will probably come sooner than others.

by Maddog on Sep 4, 2006 12:21 AM CDT up reply actions

first of all...

I hate the argument about the "traditional" power positions. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH POSITIONS TRADITIONALLY HAVE POWER IF YOU HAVE POWER IN POSITIONS THAT TRADITIONALLY DON'T. For example, Murton not having power isn't a big deal because 1.) he'll develop it, 2.) he's great at getting on base and will only improve, 3.) we have a lot of power w/ Barrett. We can pursue power at 2B w/ Soriano if need be (another position that traditionally isn't accompanied by power.
How can you say Barrett doesn't have power? The best indicatort of a power hitter is slugging percentage. Remember, this term "power" isn't supposed to measure how strong they are, i.e. # of home runs. It is supposed to measure how often they can move runners across the bases. Barrett's slugging percentage is .517 this year. That's pretty $ if you ask me.
Oh, and one more thing... tradionally the teams that win can get people on base (powers very important, but lets not sacrafice our obp guys like Murton to obtain it). Instead, dump players like Cedeno and Pierre, who just suck in both the obp and slg categories!

So we're stuck in a slump, it's only been a century...

by Old Style Heavy on Sep 3, 2006 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Well,

When the Cubs get power at positions that aren't traditional power spots, get back to me. Until then, whatever!

by Maddog on Sep 4, 2006 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions

I'll take

power anywhere, goodness I don't care where it comes from. Barrett hits 15-18 homeruns a year, I'll take that. Lets get Lee fully healthly, add some power in the outfield, Carlos Lee, and go from there.

Throw out your Gold Teeth and see how they Roll

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Sep 4, 2006 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions

I would include

Murton, Hill and Barrett for Wells and Molina, Lets see what Pie has. Seems we have given up on this guy before he gets to Chicago.
And I like Barrett, hell I know he has struggled behind the plate, but this whole team has this year. Better manager/coaches I believe will help.
My push would be for Soriano, I would make the highest offer. My fear in free agency the Cubs will low ball offers, and then gloss it all over and say" well we feel we put a very fair offer on the table,we wish Soriano/Lee/Zito/Schimdt the best of luck, It just didn't work out.

The days of Larry Himes and Willie Wilson, Candy Maldenaldo, Mike Morgan and Juan Guzman. OUCH

Don't play around McFail/Hendry, get bold.

Throw out your Gold Teeth and see how they Roll

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Sep 3, 2006 8:00 PM CDT reply actions

Lucky Me

I had the choice of watching the Cubs or the Marlins game .... guess which I choose. The Marlins 15 mil Triple A team cleaned Brewers clock 10-3 they are now a 500 team 68 - 68 not bad....
All the impossible trades and proposals being made here will not help..... You can't patch this team up or add a little here and there.
They are on Life support....
The only trade that would make sense would be too give the Marlins what ever they want for their GM Larry Beinfest and politely ask him if he could bring along his manager Joe G.
B U T ..... there is NO urgency to do any of this the T R I B like the way Andy has been running things. The turnstyles are clicking new bleachers advertising all over the place... and our fans have changed they are not the hard assed win win fans of a few years ago... NO now we are a Destination... a party place Wrigleyville ... its ok now to do the WAVE so if we lose who really cares ?

by FlaCub on Sep 3, 2006 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions

I listened

to the game on the radio today. I'm glad I didn't watch it.

I really feel bad for Michael that he had to have surgery. Ouch!!

Football season is here. GO HAWKEYES!!!!!!

by sue369 on Sep 3, 2006 8:24 PM CDT reply actions

Offseason

Two things are clear. One, the free agency market is largely barren of solid talent outside Barry Zito (0% chance coming to Chicago), Alfonso Soriano (will either stay in Washington or sign with Anaheim in my book), Carlos Lee (Rangers or Astros), and Jason Schmidt (0% chance coing to Chicago). Two, the Cubs have precious little quality to trade.

If I'm the GM, Michael Barrett is number one guy on the block. Barrett is a lousy catcher who doesn't work well with pitchers (latest example is the resurgence of Greg Maddux since he left town). Barrett has appeal to an American League ballclub. I say trade him.

by BlueBooHoo on Sep 3, 2006 10:25 PM CDT reply actions

But since when...

...did we take you seriously, Mike63? Honestly, Barrett should only be on the trading block if we're getting someone like Vernon Wells. He's too valuable otherwise. And the Cubs do have a few decent trade pieces in Pie, Mateo, and Hill, who has really given himself a lot of value since the beginning of August.

by Perkins on Sep 3, 2006 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah...

because playing in contention or having a decent offense behind him doesn't do anything.
He was 5-0 in April when the Cubs were contending. He wouldn't have kept that pace...but he would have done a lot better with a playoff level team.

So Zambrano would probably be better with a different catcher? Hell, our rookies would be undefeated if Hank was catching everyday, right?

Your exaggeration is baffling...but your pessimism is expected.

Extreme hopes are born from extreme misery. -Bertrand Russell

by thekansasian on Sep 3, 2006 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions

LA

is a great, I mean a great park to pitch in. Two or three Sundays ago, Maddux threw, 3 balls to the track, both Miller and Morgan made the comment 3 homeruns in Wrigley. Maddux excuse with Barrett I don't buy, one of the young pitchers, you might have an argument.

Throw out your Gold Teeth and see how they Roll

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Sep 4, 2006 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions

So...

is Mr. Sorrow going to start a countdown to 100 losses?

I'm very worried about my last game at Wrigley. I almost get the feeling I will get to see the 100th loss. That would not be good.

Go Big Z! Make it two Venezuelans with Cy Youngs(I believe Johan will win)!

Cubbie Blue will always sPaRkLe in my eyes, but please stop losing. PLEASE!

by sparkles721 on Sep 3, 2006 10:27 PM CDT reply actions

I have been since April

you know this. 20, 19, 18 ......

100 will come the second-to-last game of the year against Colorado.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 4, 2006 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Replace Barrett with Molina?

I'm going to avoid the Bonds argument---I don't like the guy, but funny how so many people will point fingers and say that some of the other people listed were cheaters, even though nothing has been proved in some of their cases. In this era, EVERYONE has to be under suspicion, so good luck picking who you like and who you don't based on "who cheats."

That said, what's the fascination with Molina? His offensive numbers are okay, but from everything I read, his defense is quickly getting worse. He's also 32 years old. Barrett's younger and is better offensively. When a team can't score runs, it doesn't make sense to replace one of the best hitters with an inferior hitter.

Barrett's going to have to be moved or change positions at some point---I worry that his best years are going to be wasted by the team's complete failure---so if he brought a return like Wells, I could live with that. But I would hope we could do better than Molina. Get Wells, let Molina go elsewhere.

Let's not forget that this is the guy who had no takers in the last winter. That should tell us something.

So much for the law of averages.

by JDay on Sep 3, 2006 10:44 PM CDT reply actions

Yeah,

I'll bet that being on a good team in a pennant race doesn't help Maddux at all.

I bet it is just because Barrett's not catching him.

Funny how Maddux had personal catchers most of his career, one of which played with him in his second stint in Chicago, yet he never said anything about Barrett catching him.

So much for the law of averages.

by JDay on Sep 3, 2006 10:49 PM CDT reply actions

Mike Schmidt?

He said he would have used steroids if they would have had him when he played. Is he really credible on this?

So much for the law of averages.

by JDay on Sep 3, 2006 11:31 PM CDT reply actions

It's safe to say

that a very large number of players in the past--the same as today--would have used steroids were they available. The desire to be the best at any cost is not a unique trait to today's athletes. It can be traced back to the original Olympic games where athletes took various herbs and seeds of what they believed to increase their performance. The only difference is what's available. The athlete more than 2000 years ago did what he had to do to give himself the edge and so would have baseball players 25 years ago, 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

one of the things that's always made me laugh more than others are those people who say, "now there's a guy who never would have taken steroids to do what he did." Yeah right! Or those past baseball players who condemn today's athletes saying "i never would have used them. You don't need them." Shut up! You would have taken them if you thought you needed them. THAT SIMPLE!

by Maddog on Sep 4, 2006 12:27 AM CDT up reply actions

Bonds etc

I don't like Bonds, not because of the roids, but mostly because he has always seemed like such a jerk. I will admit, if he was a Cub it probably wouldn't bother me as much.

This team needs to make a lot of changes before next year. Let Wood go and find some offense somewhere. Don't count on Prior contributing. One silver lining to this miserable season is the work that all of our rookie pitchers got. Marshall, Hill and Marmol have all had some good outings and should be much better next year.

Barrett is a real plus offensively but he is horrible defensively. If they could get a good deal for him, why not trade him?

by qccub on Sep 4, 2006 12:31 AM CDT reply actions