Rumor Central. Teahen, Johnson, Furcal

by Archie on Nov 19, 2008 10:43 AM CST Comment 64 comments

I know that all of these have been talked about in the past, but I figured that I would consolidate into a single fanpost all of the recent news.

Apparently, there is speculation that the Cubs are looking at Mark Teahan of the Royals as well as Ibanez. Might not be a bad deal and it might give Pie a place to flourish away from the bright lights assuming that he is part of the bait. LINK

I posted a while ago (you can delete if you want to, Al) that the Cubs might still be in the Peavy running. However, it looks like the braves might not be out of the contest just yet. LINK

However, now that the Cubs have signed Demp again, the scenario of Randy Johnson seems more likely than Peavy if they feel that they need another arm. Speculation (which is all that it is at this point) is that they are looking at Furcal as well. LINK

A little different topic, but Ryan Dempster has now apparently said that the Cubs weren't "prepared" for the playoffs. LINK

So, What would you do? Obviously, if you could get Peavy without giving up the entire farm, you would have to be interested. However, with a rotation that already includes Z, Demp, Lilly, and Harden, you are pretty stacked right there. Add Peavy to that mix and you have 5 #1 and #2 starters. Do you really need that, or are the dollars better spent somewhere else? I would lean towards a Teahan or Ibanex first, I think... You?

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.

0 recs | Comment 64 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

“It almost felt like it was just going to be a given that we win Games 1 and 2 and move on and go from there,” [Demptster] said.

Well, certainly, I felt that way.

"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella

by drewishdrewid on Nov 19, 2008 10:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I thought we'd split the 1st 2 games...

then win games 3 and 4. But alas…. sigh.

I haz blurg: hotbeans.wordpress.com

by digitalbenjamin on Nov 19, 2008 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe that was part of the problem.

Overconfidence.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 19, 2008 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's kinda what Demp implied...

…which is, obviously, more than a little disturbing. He said something along the lines of, “We could’ve been better prepared.”

"I see I'm not the only one around here who can't hold his water." - Last words of the leaky pipe in the visiting team dugout, Dodger Stadium, October 4, 2008.

by dat cubfan daver on Nov 19, 2008 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And the responsibility for that falls...

… partly on the players, and partly on the manager, who played the last week of the season — against contending teams — like it was spring training. No wonder they lost their edge.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 19, 2008 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

+1

n/t

by StevenABQ on Nov 19, 2008 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Overconfidence?????

The team I saw go out on the field looked ready to poop thier pants. They looked scared s-less. I think Dempster is re-writing history here. That was most certainly not an overconfident team. Unprepared maybe, but not overconfident.

Formerly NO100

by jerry morales rules on Nov 19, 2008 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't mistake the ovwerwhelming realization that they were being dominated...

for being scared shitless. I believe they were overconfident which quickly turned into panic and poor play.

Kwa...Ki...Sur...Pee...Nee...Ku?

by Kinky Reggae on Nov 19, 2008 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo.

And Dempster alludes to this on the call. He talks about the fact that both he and the Cubs had been so good at home this year that they basically expected the first two games to fall in their laps. Next thing they knew Ryan himself couldn’t hit the strike zone and the Dodgers were seemingly scoring at will.

"I see I'm not the only one around here who can't hold his water." - Last words of the leaky pipe in the visiting team dugout, Dodger Stadium, October 4, 2008.

by dat cubfan daver on Nov 19, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't buy it.

If they were so overconfident, why was Dempster afraid to challenge hitters and nibble on the corners instead? I guess I could buy that they were overconfident prior to the start of Game 1, but what kind of confidence is that if it’s gone in a nanosecond?

I think we’re arguing semantics, but I believe they were not sufficiently prepared to play, though they may have thought they were.

Formerly NO100

by jerry morales rules on Nov 19, 2008 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Demp

lost his stuff for the day. Every pitcher has their days when they just don’t have control. The problem there was

1) The offense couldn’t push through and turn it around
2) Lou didn’t take him out early enough.

"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella

by drewishdrewid on Nov 19, 2008 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And Lou didn't have Ted Lilly ready to go when Dempster faltered.

If Lilly comes into that inning, maybe the Cubs get out of it with the 2-0 lead and keep it.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 19, 2008 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I go after 3 more guys. R. Johnson, M. Bradley and Roberts.

Obviously, we would have to dump Marquis plus some other salary.

by Rick B on Nov 19, 2008 11:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Unless something weird happens ...

like, the Cubs trade Ted Lilly, I don’t see Peavy as a Cub. Initram (sp?) made the point yesterday that Peavy’s contract is structured so he wouldn’t be really expensive until after Lilly’s contract expires. That’s a really interesting thought, but I suspect Peavy’s still probably too expensive in the next two years (given the Cubs’ other needs) AND that the players required to get him will be needed to trade for another bat.

My preference was to get Peavy instead of Dempster, but I think Hendry pulled the trigger yesterday to secure the rotation and know how much money he has left and how much talent he has available to trade. And that’s OK.

What intrigues me is the notion that the Cubs might sign Randy Johnson even though they already have Jason Marquis. To me, they have about the same value at this point — Johnson MIGHT be a better pitcher, but Marquis is more durable.

If I’m Hendry, I stick with the rotation I have — Z, Dempster, Harden, Lilly, Marquis/Marshall — and spend whatever money/trading chips I have left to acquire a leadoff hitter and/or a lefty power bat.

by elgato on Nov 19, 2008 11:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

can we stop with the durability comments

Randy Johnson’s IP totals since turning 40 vs. Marquis during this time frame

Big Unit Jason Marquis

2004 245 2/3 201 1/3
2005 225 2/3 207
2006 205 194 1/3
2007 56 191 2/3
2008 184 167

Big Unit has thrown more innings than Marquis in every year of the last 5 with the exception of ONE

as for the idea that Johnson “MIGHT” be better….

ERA+ Big Unit Marquis

2004 177 115
2005 112 102
2006 90 74
2007 123 101
2008 117 99

there is no MIGHT about it….. Johnson when on a mound is a far superior pitcher to Jason Marquis. And over the last 5 years every year with the exception of ONE, he’s been able to take the mound MORE THAN Marquis

by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 19, 2008 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!

— Homer Simpson

I haz blurg: hotbeans.wordpress.com

by digitalbenjamin on Nov 19, 2008 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I resemble that remark....

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Nov 19, 2008 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Come on, DCF -

Are you really telling me that the first stat on Randy Johnson’s card isn’t relevant – Age?

There are real durability concerns with Johnson. If there weren’t he’d be a D’back for the price we were reading he’d take.

That said, durability is not an issue for a Cubs team that has Gaudin, Marshall, and Samardzija all twiddling their thumbs in the bullpen.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Nov 19, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it hasn't been for the last 5 years

so why should it be a huge question mark now???

Is he going to throw 200 innings? probably not, but neither is Marquis (Marquis may be healthy enough to, but he’s not effective enough to) and Marquis gets applauded for his great durability and ability to eat innings, while Johnson has bested him 4 of the last 5 years

it makes no sense

could it be a concern? sure, as it could with ANY pitcher. Is it a concern right now? It shouldn’t be based on the last 5 years…

by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 19, 2008 12:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True or False?

There’s a significant risk with any 45 year old pitcher that his next pitch will be his last.

I’m for getting RJ. I’d prefer, to be clear, to trade Marquis and Lilly and get Peavy and Johnson.

But there’s a durability risk to Johnson simply because he’s old.

by DGU on Nov 19, 2008 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

then

there’s a durability risk simply because he’s a pitcher too

because take out the phrase “45 year old” from your true or false question and the answer is exactly the same

by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 19, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, yes, but come on

a 45 year old’s body has a lot more risk than a 25 year old’s.

by DGU on Nov 19, 2008 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

generally

is the key word i think you’re missing

generally all things equal a 45 year old probably has more injury risk than a 25 year, but if the guy just pitched 184 innings last year without much problem how much has his injury risk increased in the last 3 months without anything happening to him?

I’m not saying there’s no risk in signing someone like Johnson, sure there’s some. But we keep harping over his “durability” when he’s been more durable than almost everyone on our staff over the last 5 years

by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 19, 2008 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The risk is there

because he’s had 3 back surgeries. VERY big risk he will continue to have back problems and need additional surgery.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Nov 19, 2008 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

as for why he's not a DBack

they’re in financial struggles… they’ve made this known as the primary reason for not bringing Randy back or Orlando Hudson or any of their other key FA’s

note DBacks ownership… contract extension to Eric Byrnes was a baaaaaad idea

by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 19, 2008 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That Is What I Said...

… and you spelled initram correctly! ;-)

I think what happens next is Hendry focuses on what’s next on his priority list, which I see as two-fold. (1) Get that lefty RF, and (2) push Marquis’ salary.

If something pops with Peavy, great. Having it simmer for a while can’t hurt because (1) the leverage should now go in the Cubs favor since Peavy is no longer a “need”, but rather a “want”, (2) it will take time for a third/fourth team to develop, and (3) Ultimately, Peavy has a NTC.

In Hendry We Trust

by initram on Nov 19, 2008 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

I'm just frustrated with the payroll

It sucks that this is a huge issue for us right now. We generate as much revenue as the Red Sox, but with the current ownership situation, we’re pretty much done adding payroll for this year. The window for a WS won’t be open much longer for us, and in an offseason with a much better free agency selection, not to mention Jake Peavy there for the taking, we are pretty much handcuffed to do much else. Mark Teahan? Yawn. We could use a SS (Furcal), a RF (Ibanez?) a 1b (Texiera) a LOOGY (beimel) and an 8th inning guy to take Marmol’s spot (Gregg? Please.) , but I don’t think any of these will happen due to the payroll limitation. I know, we’re spending far more than ever before, but you wonder if just $20 mil more of a ceiling could be the difference for us this year. Alas, I fear we’ll never know.

by reedjohnson on Nov 19, 2008 12:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Red Sox payroll last year

was $133 Million

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/boston-red-sox.html

we’re at nearly $125-$130 million right now

The $20 million more of a ceiling you’re asking for has never been approached by the Red Sox in their history

by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 19, 2008 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a good reason not to trade for Peavy

It means we send a bunch of good, cheap prospects down to San Diego for more expensive, backloaded contracts. Then in 2011 (or whenever Ramirez’s deal is up) instead of having Vitters, we have to sign a new 3rd baseman. The team is good; all they need is a guy like Furcal and maybe RJ.

With the draft picks coming and the fact that they have a good core of pitching signed for quite a few years, this team has the possibility to be very good for the next 4-5 years. There’s no reason to handcuff yourself with a lot of salary and no worthwhile prospects, which is what the Peavy deal would do.

by dr stabbingworth on Nov 19, 2008 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice explanation.

I agree.

"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007

by DeRoMyHero on Nov 19, 2008 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

… now you can’t offer Wood arbitration, because he likely would accept it. That means no draft picks , no youth added.

In Hendry We Trust

by initram on Nov 19, 2008 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Point well taken...

…my grumbling will lessen. Perhaps if we hadn’t handed out an insane contract to a guy coming off an ERA of 6.02 a few years ago, for instance, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. As many have noted, we’re handcuffed by large contracts to average players (Lee, Marquis, Fukodome, and now Dempster, IMO).

With regards to the LH RFr we so desperately need, what about Hoffpauir? Why is this guy never mentioned? Put the guy in RF in winter ball and see if he can field the position. Glove aside, I’d rather see him in RF than Mark Teahan. Why is this guy not given a shot, or at least even mentioned?

by reedjohnson on Nov 19, 2008 12:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Simple.

He can’t play outfield with any proficiency, and RF in Wrigley is the toughest RF to play in MLB. Hoffpauir is destined to be a 1B/DH over on the junior circuit.

Jimmyeatworld

by Jimmyeatworld on Nov 19, 2008 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Which reminds me...why isn't he mentioned in any of the trade talk rumors?

Why isn’t Hendry trying to sell his talents? Is he “sellable”?

"I'm not much of a chemistry guy, you know. Chemistry to me is a pinch-hit double with the bases loaded"--Jim Frey, Chicago Tribune, 1985.

by zevkalman on Nov 19, 2008 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There is no market for Hoffpauir

because he’s nothing special.

by DGU on Nov 19, 2008 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

got a quarter?

"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella

by drewishdrewid on Nov 19, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Micah hasn't really shown

that he’s a major-league hitter (to say nothing of his defensive abilities). I’d be more inclined to give Pie a starting job (in center) and platoon Johnson and Fukudome in right.

I doubt that will happen, given Lou’s apparent issues with Pie. And even if it did happen, I’d want the Cubs to also get a middle infielder who can hit left-handed (Furcal or Roberts).

by elgato on Nov 19, 2008 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, he's mentioned.

Maybe not so much here, but in other forums. (One of the guys on Cubscast tried to make an argument for him.) As Jimmy points out, he’s not an outfielder and has yet to prove his miraculous minor league hitting abilities at the major league level. If he was even remotely patient at the plate, maybe he’d get a little more respect. But, given a full time job in right field, he’d probably strike out a ton without drawing many walks and not even come close to 20 home runs. He’d be a last resort, at best.

Honestly, assuming Pie isn’t traded, I’d rather see RJ and Felix platoon in center and Dome take another hack (ooh, sorry) at being the full-time rightfielder before letting Micah out there.

"I see I'm not the only one around here who can't hold his water." - Last words of the leaky pipe in the visiting team dugout, Dodger Stadium, October 4, 2008.

by dat cubfan daver on Nov 19, 2008 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The next step is to sign a bat

Hendry will do nothing until the bat is signed. Those were the two biggest jobs of the offseason. If he can’t get a trade done he’ll have to drop cash, which means unloading payroll. A lot of speculation here about nothing. Get the bat signed, then we talk about a pitcher that we don’t really have room for right now until Marquis is gone or delegated to the pen. Hendry can’t unload anything for Peavy and lose any of his limited trade chips until the LH bat is in the fold. Patience me friends, patience.

This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).

by mrcubsfan on Nov 19, 2008 1:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Reed Johnson

It seems it’s a given that Johnson can’t be a full time fielder in CF. I haven’t had the chance to look real closely at his stats, but I was wondering if anyone knew why the platoon has to be in CF instead of in right? (i.e. the other option being to platoon Dome in right)

From what I remember, his splits aren’t terrible; I don’t recall him being a terrible fielder; and his VORP was higher last year than any of our other options (assuming we don’t have Edmonds).

He does bat right handed, so I guess if Lou wants a LH CF and RF then that would also play in…and Dome’s defense would help out with Soriano in Left…

Anyway, I haven’t had the chance to look closely enough so I’m definitely not saying Johnson should be full time CF; but I was wondering if anyone had an idea on why that seems to be a non-starter?

by CubsWin!Oregon on Nov 19, 2008 2:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

excuse the terrible pun in the last sentence.

by CubsWin!Oregon on Nov 19, 2008 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

“We underestimated how prepared you have to be.” “Maybe L.A. was just a little more prepared for us than we were for them.”

Is that not an indictment of the manager? I know we can’t blame Lou for the sweep, but it is a little disturbing to hear a player say that the team was underprepared. That is the manager’s job. Lou is also the one with the most playoff experience…I’m growing more and more frustrated with that man.

Free Ronny Cedeno

by Kansas25 on Nov 19, 2008 2:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it's like the Dodgers showed up at Wrigley Field wearing full body armor...

…and the Cubs walked out in their boxer shorts.

"I see I'm not the only one around here who can't hold his water." - Last words of the leaky pipe in the visiting team dugout, Dodger Stadium, October 4, 2008.

by dat cubfan daver on Nov 19, 2008 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You nailed it

the Cubs looked like Nuke Laloosh pitching in his garters and jock strap

Tommie Agee was out.
"This field, this game, is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that was once good, and it could be good again." TM

by Weeghman Park on Nov 19, 2008 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's Eppie Calvin Laloosh to you, partner.

"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris

by willie mays hayes' gloves on Nov 19, 2008 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lou took it that way too...

That’s why he blasted back at Dempster, saying that is was just a failure of offensive production; plain and simple.

by Jimsil on Nov 20, 2008 6:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If you have to rely on your manager...

…to get a veteran club mentally ready for a playoff run (especially in the Cubs situation), I would say the player need to take a collective look in the mirror.

Quite honestly, I completely disagree with what Dempster said and would chalk up the poor performance to “playing tight” as opposed to being over confident.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 20, 2008 9:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If we only have the $$$ for one more guy, Id go for Furcal

Back problems aside, he’s got what we need and he’s still only 31, so depending on how long he wants, I think he could help out a great deal.

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Nov 19, 2008 3:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yep

And then you can platoon Theriot/Fontenot and move DeRosa to right. Fontenot becomes that left-handed hitter with power and you never have to expose him to lefties. You upgrade the infield defense immensely (Furcal over Theriot, and Theriot over DeRosa) with a minimal loss in right. Toss Hoff into the D Ward role with some limited playtime in right.

At some point Hendry is going to have to realize that he can’t buy his way out everything. We have the chips in house.

by dr stabbingworth on Nov 19, 2008 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We're like the Yankees of the late 90s early 00s

Minus the titles of course, but largely based on imported talent. I think this approach can work for the next few years, but its not exactly prudent, better to have cheaper home grown star talent of course, but for the next 2-3 years I think our purchased players should keep performing.

Even Cashman has realized that homegrown developed talent is the better fiscal alternative, and ultimately a more sound strategy b/c FA signings have varied levels of success.

But watch out for 2012, and Im not talking about the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy.

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Nov 19, 2008 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"Theirot over DeRosa"?

What?

"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella

by drewishdrewid on Nov 19, 2008 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs certainly played like they were

unprepared in the NLDS.

On the other hand, so did the Angels, the Dodgers in the NLCS and the Rays in the World Series.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Nov 19, 2008 4:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I actually disagree.

Here we have a player (our game 1 starter, no less) who is admitting that the team was not prepared.

IMO, the Angels lost because of a mental block and lack of confidence against the Red Sox. The Dodgers and Rays both lost to a hotter and arguably better team. One can’t blame every loss or lost series on a lack of preparation.

I believe we were the better team in the NLDS. One of our best players just said we weren’t prepared, which is a major red flag. Something needs to be addressed.

Free Ronny Cedeno

by Kansas25 on Nov 19, 2008 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That has to start with the manager.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 19, 2008 10:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought

that comment from Piniella about Dome not having “core strength” is right on the money. There was something about him that bothered me when I watched him last year, and now I know what it is. He just did not seem athletically strong. His swing was weak and he just appeared overmatched.

For the first time, I have some hope that Dome can turn things around, If the can get him to buy into a more rigorous training routine, we may see a different Dome in 2009.

by azjazzman on Nov 19, 2008 10:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

You'd think...

… coming from Japan, he’d have HAD a rigorous training routine, because that’s one thing Japanese baseball is known for.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 20, 2008 9:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But not

the kind of core strength training that Lou is talking about. Japanese tend to focus on flexibility and Kinesiology type training. What is surprising to me, as I know the Cubs employ a strength and conditioning coach, is that they didn’t address this before now.

What probably happened is that they figured since Dome had been so successful in Japan, they didn’t want to mess him up with a bunch of Americanized strength training methods. Now that he has struggled, they are taking another look at that decision.

by azjazzman on Nov 20, 2008 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The big question is -

is Dome failing because he needs to be Americanized or did he start failing because they were already starting to Americanize him. In other words, can the approach Dome started 2008 with work consistently in the major leagues. Because totally remaking Dome, could work, but it could also be as disastrous as remaking Pie at the ML level was last year.

by DGU on Nov 20, 2008 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think

Lou is suggesting Americaninzing Dome or completely remaking him, either. The way I read it is that they identified that he could benefit from a stronger core, which inherently would give him more leverage in his swing. In terms of changing his approach at the plate, etc., I have no idea what their plans are.

All I meant by my post was that when Lou mentioned that Dome could benefit from some core strength training, a little light bulb went off for me and I think he is on to something.

As far as the rest of your post, baseball is a game of adjustments. It is clear the pitchers adjusted to Dome’s rather unconventional hitting style and found a hole in his plate coverage. Towards the end of the season, Dome’s frustration was obvious and so were his struggles to adjust to what they were throwing him. This is pretty typical of players when they are struggling for the first time in their career. They start to think “this has always worked before, why not now?” The only difference with Dome is that one would think he would have had to make adjustments in Japan, but perhaps the MLB scouts picked up something that the Japanese teams never did.

by azjazzman on Nov 20, 2008 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your last sentence is the big ? for me.

If baseball is a game of adjustments (and I agree it is) then those adjustments are just as much a part of the game in Japan as they are here.

I don’t see how strength core training is going to help Dome make adjustments (but I don’t know much about the detailed relationship of training and baseball performance); it seems to me, rather, that hope to increase Dome’s strength core, is more of the same hope to make him a legitimate American-model #5 hitter, which he’s just not going to be. Dome can be a very useful hitter in America, just not the hitter the Cubs thought they were getting last year.

by DGU on Nov 20, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Core strength

training will not help him make adjustments. But, believe it or not, it WILL change his swing somewhat and will give his swing more leverage, which COULD improve his ability to square up a ball that is low and outside and hit it with authority, where he is mostly flailing at now.

It is all about leverage, not necessarily power. They are not saying he needs to increase arm and upper body strength to generate more power, they are saying he needs to build core strength that will give his swing more leverage.

by azjazzman on Nov 20, 2008 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My question is...

… that by doing as you suggest, would you change Dome’s body to the point where he wouldn’t be able to play baseball the way he has for more than a decade?

Lack of core strength wasn’t responsible for that horrible helicopter swing.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 20, 2008 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Increasing

core strength doesn’t change anything, it just makes you a more powerful athlete.

Look at Ichiro…nobody has a more unusual swing than he does, but it looks like a work of art when he is hitting hard line drives all over the place.

The thing is, when you watch Ichiro play, it is very clear that he is a very powerful man – all 160 pounds of him.

You do not get that feeling from Dome, despite the fact that he is much bigger.

by azjazzman on Nov 20, 2008 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't call Ichiro...

…a powerful man, but I would call him a player who gets the maximum out of his power.

The Japanes players use their lower half more than any other players in the game. IMO, they are taught to do this because they are typicall smaller in stature and it helps them to drive the ball.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 20, 2008 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs