Questions: Stevens, Ryan, Lugo, Fontenot
by nickler on Jul 20, 2009 12:50 AM CDT
Email
Print
Hello; hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions.
Thanks in advance for your wisdom!
1. How has Fontenot been hitting on days he has played his natural position (2B) vs. 3B? Is there a way to look this up? I would be very interested to see if perhaps his slump as due to playing a position he was not accustomed to or comfortable with, i.e., being forced into the 3B position because of the Ramirez injury. Certainly, he seems to be doing much better lately.
2. Why not take a flyer on Julio Lugo? His line this year is: .287/.352/.367. Yes, that's not great, but it beats what we get out of Blanco/Miles. And he could act as a backup SS which we really don't have, or be an option to replace whoever is slumping at 2B. It would seem like a very low-risk high potential reward type deal. I would think the Red Sox would take just about anyone for Lugo at this point since they are on the hook for his salary with no return if no trade gets made.
3. How has Stevens looked? I did not get the chance to see him pitch and I have been very excited about this prospect. He was looking great when we heard news of him here in Cleveland. I think his first game was Saturday against the Nats. Was he impressive?
Ironically, the Indians traded exactly what they have needed this year (relief pitching) to the Cubs for exactly what WE needed (a reliable 2B that can play other positions and substitute at 3B).
4. Any word on how BJ Ryan has looked? That's another one I'm very hopeful about (see Eyre, Scott 2008 Phillies. I still cannot believe we let him go to make room for Neal Cotts...) Hopefully, he can turn things around like Eyre did last year.
5. How has Jake Fox looked when playing 3B this year? I asked this before, after he had only played a couple games. Now that he has played a few more at 3B how has he done? Is he a realistic substitute for the position in the future?
6. Is Angel Guzman a free agent after this year? I sure hope this is not his last year with the team and that he tries to rake the team for money when this is the first time he has ever contributed.
7. Does David Patton need to stay on the roster the entire year or only for 52 games? I thought he only needed to stay for 52 games to stay with the team. If so, can't we now demote him to the minors and still keep rights to him?
Hello; hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions.
Thanks in advance for your wisdom!
1. How has Fontenot been hitting on days he has played his natural position (2B) vs. 3B? Is there a way to look this up? I would be very interested to see if perhaps his slump as due to playing a position he was not accustomed to or comfortable with, i.e., being forced into the 3B position because of the Ramirez injury. Certainly, he seems to be doing much better lately.
2. Why not take a flyer on Julio Lugo? His line this year is: .287/.352/.367. Yes, that's not great, but it beats what we get out of Blanco/Miles. And he could act as a backup SS which we really don't have, or be an option to replace whoever is slumping at 2B. It would seem like a very low-risk high potential reward type deal. I would think the Red Sox would take just about anyone for Lugo at this point since they are on the hook for his salary with no return if no trade gets made.
3. How has Stevens looked? I did not get the chance to see him pitch and I have been very excited about this prospect. He was looking great when we heard news of him here in Cleveland. I think his first game was Saturday against the Nats. Was he impressive?
Ironically, the Indians traded exactly what they have needed this year (relief pitching) to the Cubs for exactly what WE needed (a reliable 2B that can play other positions and substitute at 3B).
4. Any word on how BJ Ryan has looked? That's another one I'm very hopeful about (see Eyre, Scott 2008 Phillies. I still cannot believe we let him go to make room for Neal Cotts...) Hopefully, he can turn things around like Eyre did last year.
5. How has Jake Fox looked when playing 3B this year? I asked this before, after he had only played a couple games. Now that he has played a few more at 3B how has he done? Is he a realistic substitute for the position in the future?
6. Is Angel Guzman a free agent after this year? I sure hope this is not his last year with the team and that he tries to rake the team for money when this is the first time he has ever contributed.
7. Does David Patton need to stay on the roster the entire year or only for 52 games? I thought he only needed to stay for 52 games to stay with the team. If so, can't we now demote him to the minors and still keep rights to him?
| .284 | 1 | 8 | .352 | .367 |
| 284 | 1 | 8 | .352 | .367 |
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.
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On Jeff Stevens.
His first game was actually just before the All-Star break; July 10th against the Cards. I was there!
He pitched a 1-2-3 inning, which seemed to be beyond the other Cubs pitchers that day.
Before each game, please remember to feed the bats.
2. Why not take a flyer on Julio Lugo? His line this year is: .287/.352/.367. Yes, that’s not great, but it beats what we get out of Blanco/Miles. And he could act as a backup SS which we really don’t have, or be an option to replace whoever is slumping at 2B. It would seem like a very low-risk high potential reward type deal. I would think the Red Sox would take just about anyone for Lugo at this point since they are on the hook for his salary with no return if no trade gets made.
no no NO
wells4roty
Should've dealt for
Felipe Lopez instead of letting him land in Milwaukee…
100 years would have been nice, but 101 years still has a nice ring to it.
Really, we don't need a middle infielder.
Mike Fontenot is starting to hit again. He and Jeff Baker will make a decent platoon. The Cubs need bullpen help and maybe a catcher if Soto can’t come back soon.
Can we all stop jumping on every player who gets DFA’d by another team?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al Yellon on Jul 20, 2009 6:41 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with Al
when any decent middle infielder (ie Roberts, Sanchez, Lugo) gets on the market, we are always yelling SIGN HIM SIGN HIM SIGN HIM! Hendry is not going to sign a bat that would replace Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley, Ramirez, Theriot, Lee or Soto (when he’s healthy). So 2B is realistically the only position where we can add power. That being said, Al is right, we desperately need more bullpen help before we think about adding a bat. BJ Ryan is a start, but Marshall will get overworked unless we get another lefty, especially if he has to make a substitute start or two while Dempster is gone.
I don't think we especially need Julio Lugo
but the ironic thing is that there’s little difference between him and Ryan Theriot, who people view as one of our best players.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
lugo is a butcher on D anyways
wells4roty
by jesus christos on Jul 20, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions
A 14 point difference in OPS+...
is far more than “little difference.”
Theriot is significantly better than Lugo.
OPS+ isn't a good gauge of what they do.
Theriot’s OPS is inflated because of his stint as a “power-hitter,” something it appears he’s given up. But, Lugo’s got a .005 pt edge in OBP, where their real value is, and that in the harder league.
If I had to pick one and cost was irrelevant, I’d pick Theriot (because I think is OBP is deflated from his power-hitter stint), but it’s not like he’s “significantly” better at any level of the game.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
for comparison
lugo started 27 games and has 7 errors for a .928 FLD%
theriot has started 88 games and has 10 errors for a .971 FLD%
wells4roty
by jesus christos on Jul 20, 2009 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions
You're right.
27 games is a small sample size to make determinations of a player’s fielding ability, especially when we know he was injured. Good point.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Agreed and rec'd.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
The same Jeff Baker that turns routine 4-3's into singles?
The same Jeff Baker with the stance and results reminiscent of Jeff Kunkel?
Fontenot might yet turn out to be ok. Baker, however, doesn’t strike me as someone who is going to contribute a whole lot.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 20, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Has Baker played enough
for us to determine this?
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes.
Baker, however, doesn’t strike me as someone who is going to contribute a whole lot.
Seeing as that’s my opinion.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 20, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
The "4-3" comment, btw
Is in reference to the play where he took way to long on a routine grounder and allowed the batter to beat the play.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 20, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions
ok
fair enough.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, that was a bad play.
But Baker has produced far more at the ML level than Jeff Kunkel. I’m willing to give him a shot for a few starts vs LHP.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Sure, might as well play him since he's on the roster
And I’m certainly not an MLB scout. I just think he’s not going to be a factor. I hope I’m wrong, and I’ll admit it if I am.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 20, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Some facts and some opinions
1. This is one of many things covered on the splits pages at baseball-reference.com . Here is a link. To find it yourself, do a player search for the player you want, then in the bar under where it says “Standard Batting” mouse over “Splits” and choose the year you want splits for. Long story short, his hitting hasn’t been very good regardless of his defensive assignment, but he might be heating up!
2. If the Red Sox don’t want his salary the Cubs don’t either. He might be capable of being a minor contributor to the team, but I doubt he’d play enough or play well enough to justify paying much money or sending valuable players.
3 and 4, can’t really comment.
5. I think the consensus is that Fox hasn’t been all that good at third, but hasn’t been an embarrassment; he made at least one mental error today and nearly committed a physical. He was involved in a lot of plays today, and one game is hardly a representation. He might be a bit of a target for bunt hits, though I don’t think he’s handled bunts particularly poorly. I don’t think any team would hand Jake Fox a starting job except as a DH, but his total package is good enough to be a bench player or fill-in for an injured starter.
6 and 7. Dunno.
2. Normally the players new team only pays league minimum and the old team picks up the remainder of his contract. But he still sucks and that’s no reason to sign him.
Only if he clears waivers...
Has he cleared waivers yet? I just thought he had been waived. If he clears waivers, then you’re correct. He’s only required to receive the minimum from his new team, with Boston picking up the remainder.
by SouthernCub on Jul 20, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
The original post talked about sending players to Boston, and Boston wanting to dump his salary...
It sounded like he was advocating making a trade before he came off waivers, which would only be a good idea if Jim Hendry was angling for good playoff tickets in Fenway.
wow is that site
cool as hell, thanks for that
by CubsFanInWisconsin on Jul 20, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions
do ya think
Fox is any better at 3rd than Ryan Zimmerman or Mark Reynolds?
Nutdrinkingamp12
Live Long and Prosper
by nutdrinkingamp12 on Jul 20, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Is that a rheortical question?
Ryan Zimmerman is an outstanding defensive third baseman.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
I wouldn't say outstanding
Last year he cost his team 10 runs in the field, and his range factor is only a little above average. But yes, he definitely isn’t bad.
"That pitch wasn’t down and in, that pitch was down and up." Tim McCarver
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 21, 2009 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions
all these players are nobodies
you think these guys will help the cubbies get past the cardinals or brewers what a joke
take it easy
why care about a bloggers grammar
Guzman and Fox
have both been very helpful in their roles. Fonty is the starting second baseman.
Not only are you angry, you’re wrong.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions
stevens has looked like, well...
a reliever. if that sounds snarky, it isn’t meant so. there are a very few very good relievers. there are a number who are just relievers. there are some that are lucky to be in the big leagues. there are a great many who just won’t cut it.
stevens looks like he might belong, though a few more (dozen) outings will help to determine. he should be at least good enough to ride the chicago/iowa shuttle for a few years. i don’t think he has any dominant pitches to jump into the ‘elite’ category. but adequate relief is in short supply. it was in the nineties. it was in the seventies, and the thirties. it will be in twenty years as well.
the reason we traded dero, despite his value, was we needed to upgrade our system’s arms. if stevens is okay, gaub provides us a lefty of similar ilk, and archer can either make the rotation in the future or be a quality chip, the trade will be a success. look for posts saying i’m an idiot.
stevens will be fine. not primo, but fine.
My thoughts...
1. Most stat services should be able to give you those splits. here’s Baseball Reference’s link: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=fontemi01&year=2009&t=b
Fontenot has been hitting roughly the same at 2B and 3B. He’s had a better average at 2B, but more walks and more power at 3B. The difference in OPS is small.
2. Lugo is not the type to be excited about a backup role at this point. And we don’t really need a backup middle infielder. He would be better than the alternatives (Miles, Blanco, etc). But he’s not really a huge upgrade, and could be a problem if he balks at being a backup.
3. Too limited an MLB sample on Stevens. My guess is he’s adequate, but nothing special.
4. He was supposed to go to Mesa for a bit, so I don’t think he’s pitched any sort of meaningful setting yet with the Cubs.
5. He has been adequate there. Definitely not a gold glover, but also not a huge liability either. He’s an adequate sub there. But that’s not a great long-term spot for him. The Cubs have Ramirez through next year (and hopefully thereafter), and hopefully will have Vitters eventually at 3B.
6. The Cubs have the rights to Guzman for several more years. I don’t think he’s even arbitration-eligible yet. And if he is arbitration-eligible, this winter would be his first arbitration year. So as long as the Cubs want to keep him, he’ll be around.
7. Patton has to stay on the 25-man roster all year. He cannot be optioned to the minors at any point. He can, however, be sent to the DL. The catch is that he has to be on the active roster for 90 days as well. However, I believe hes’ already met that criteria.
Patton is currently a non-issue though, as he’s on the DL right now (so he’s not wasting a roster spot). There’s some debate over how long a player can stay on the DL, but my guess is that he will be on the active roster as little as possible until September 1. After September 1, he can be hidden with the expanded rosters. At this point, it looks pretty certain that he’ll stay a Cub, even if he has to come back up to the big leagues for a few weeks in August.
Exactly Right
…And I do believe he has met the 90-day criteria. Some local sports reporters were saying he is a Cub now. Officially, he is not. Perhaps they were suggesting he will be with high certainty, thus calling him a Cub now?
Also, if a Rule 5 was active for, say, 75 games, and then was gone for the rest of the year due to injury, he would not have to be returned. I believe Rule 5 criteria would roll over to the following year. Once that pitcher was active for 15 more days, he would become property of the new team and relinquish Rule 5 criteria.
by initram on Jul 20, 2009 8:57 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
i'd sure like to read the rule
i’ve been all over this one since mid-march. i still haven’t seen a link. season started april 6th. went on dl july 7th-ish. that would be 90-ish days. his ‘rehab’ will be over at some point in early-mid august. if it’s 90 days on the 25 man, he’s reallllly close. could probably have another ‘sore forearm’ type injury and get dl’d again.
but if the rumored ‘no more than thirty days on the dl’ is the standard, he’ll hafta go another three plus weeks on the 25-man roster.
cripes, if it’s ninety days, i’d take a shot at an outfielder next year. someone with some quicks and periodic power.
He's made it 90 days...
25 days in April, 31 days in May, 30 days in June, and 5-6 days in July = 91-92 days.
As for the reference, here are some links:
http://www.purplerow.com/2009/3/26/809925/mlb-transactions-part-seve
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=661:rule-5-draft&catid=44:business-of-baseball-glossary&Itemid=75
The “30 days” rumor is not an issue. A player can be on the 15-day DL for as long as they need to be on it. The 30-day rule (for pitchers; it’s 20 days for players) applies to the length of time an MLB player can be assigned to the minor leagues on a rehab assignment:
http://assets.espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html
To this point, I don’t believe that Patton has been assigned to a minor league team. Therefore, his 30-day clock has not begun to tick. Thus, at this point, I doubt we’ll see him before Sept 1. At that point, his roster spot is not an issue because the active rosters expand to 40.
by SouthernCub on Jul 20, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions
In other words, Patton is a non-issue the rest of the way (if the Cubs want it that way)...
As long as the Cubs don’t put Patton on rehab assignment until early-August, they can simply leave him on the DL until Sept 1. At that point, they can call him up and hide him in the bullpen for the rest of the season.
by SouthernCub on Jul 20, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
great site, biz of baseball
thanks for the link. great info for the business end of the sport.
1) Better.
2) No, thanks. Blanco IS our backup SS.
3) Static.
4) He joined the team what, two days ago? He’s still in Arizona, I think.
5) Competent, but not a long-term replacement.
6) He’s already a free-agent, signed in 1999. He has 2.095 years of ML service.
7) Patton is on the DL, you can’t demote him.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
6 is not quite accurate... the Cubs have Guzman's rights for a few more years.
He will first become arbitration-eligible in 2010, according to Cott’s contracts.
Thus, he’s not a free agent unless the Cubs do not decide to offer him arbitration (which would be shocking).
by SouthernCub on Jul 20, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions
huh.
Cot’s is where I got he was a free agent from. His entry:
Angel Guzman rhp
1 year/$0.4215M (2009)
* 1 year/$0.4215M (2009)
o re-signed by Cubs 2/25/09
* 1 year/$0.401M (2008)
* 1 year/$0.384M (2007)
o re-signed 3/07
* signed 1999 as free agent (originally signed 1999 by KC as amateur free agent from Venezuela, but deal was voided after Guzman failed physical)
* agent: CSMG
* ML service: 2.095
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
He *was* a free-agent...
…he isn’t now. He’s under team control for, what, another 3-4 years? However, he’s out of options.
Correct...
The Cubs maintain his rights through 2012 as long as the Cubs don’t try to demote him to the minors or fail to offer him arbitration.
by SouthernCub on Jul 20, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
All non-American players are signed as free-agents initially...
once you’re within an organization, you are no longer a free agent. The rules are kind of complicated. Then, you’re a minor leaguer for X number of years before you can become a minor league free agent. If you make the 40-man roster, you are an optional assignment for 3 years. Once you make the majors, you have 3 years of service before you can become arbitration eligible. Once you’re arbitration eligible, you aren’t a free agent for another 3 years of arbitration eligibility. Only then can you become a free agent.
So you can either become a minor league free agent after so many years in the minors, or you can become a major league free agent after so many years. Luckily for us, Guzman doesn’t qualify either way.
Check out this link from Cott’s for more detail:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ew-fwu2XT0CnKzbYR_Kdw
And this one from another site:
http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/05/cubs09_payroll.php
by SouthernCub on Jul 20, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions
alright.
cool. Didn’t know that.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, we've got several talented guys locked up for a while...
and for fairly cheap. Which is huge because we’ve got a lot of expensive contracts as well.
On the other side, I think this offseason may be fairly quiet in terms of free agent acquisitions for us, given that we’re at basically $120 million for our top 8 contracts in 2010.
by SouthernCub on Jul 20, 2009 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Fox is a poor man's Phil Nevin
Definitely a guy who can fill in multiple spots and contribute offense off the bench. That said, let’s give him a game to catch. Maybe not against the Phils, but against a station-to-station team, he can probably hold his own.
I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg
by Bill Potter on Jul 20, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
good comparison
he does exactly what Nevin did, and I agree lets give him a couple chances to catch so maybe we don’t have to have a guy who is almost an automatic out in the eight spot while Soto is out.
This isn't a local beer league
Defense is NOT optional. Jake Fox behind the plate is a very terrible idea.
$136 million payroll for a .500 style ballclub. Good work Jim.
+1
Good to hear from you again, BLou.
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Jul 20, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions
2 innings
no physical errors passed balls or mental errors against the cards in the double header day
Nutdrinkingamp12
Live Long and Prosper
by nutdrinkingamp12 on Jul 20, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions
which is what
many people said about him at third. Just sayin’.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions
The more he plays the more he is exposed at 3rd...
He looked pretty shaky out there yesterday. I know it didn’t cost them any runs but sooner or later it may.
"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." - Alvin Dark
he really only made
one mistake. He’s not a full-time starter, certainly.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Which is too bad because they don't call him Jake "The Rake" for nothin.
The guy can flat out hit.
"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." - Alvin Dark
the lineup post
in the fanshots links to an article that says that he had a new glove yesterday. That’s interesting.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions
I read that... Fox said, "I couldn't catch that well with the old glove. So I thought I'd try a new one.""
Lou responds, “this new one doesn’t work that well either.” as every ball hit to him was juggled yesterday.
Jake seems like he has a good sense of humor. Plays loose and relaxes other guys.
"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." - Alvin Dark
‘’He had a new glove at third base today, and we checked it out a little bit,’’ Piniella said, starting to smile. ‘’He said, ’I couldn’t catch the ball with my old glove.’ I said, ‘Well, so far, you’re not going much better with your new one.’ But he settled down.’’
‘’It was an interesting day over there at third base,’’ said Fox, who is much more adept at the plate, batting .326 with four homers and 19 RBI in 86 at-bats. ’’It’s all good.’’
"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." - Alvin Dark
It's not a terrible idea. And Fox can be a serviceable Major League catcher (at least a backup)
The guy has caught since the age of 8, so he knows the basics to it. He was coached by Mike Matheny’s old coach at Michigan, and I’m pretty sure if Fox was awful defensively then, he probably wouldn’t have caught for Michigan.
Look, for an entire season, would Fox be a viable option? Probably not. But the odds are that Fox won’t cost the Cubs a game by catching. And if he continues to hit and Koyie Hill does not, then Fox’s offense may outweigh Hill’s defense. The trick is finding a team that does not run much, thereby mitigating one of the main ways they would attack Fox.
I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg
Brewers would match up good with a non-stealing team.
But you never know. People that normally don’t steal may try more if Fox is back there. I thought for sure the Nat’s would pepper Fox with bunts. Morgan bunted once but that was it.
"Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living." - Alvin Dark
Oddly enough
Morgan swiped a couple bases on Hill, the “defensive specialist.” Though at least one of those was stolen on Kevin Hart.
Point being, Fox isn’t going to kill the Cubs behind the plate. And I’ve expressed my belief that another side to his perceived “defensive liabilities” comes from an incident when he was in the minor leagues a few years back.
I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg
+1
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 20, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Apparently you're smarter than Lou Piniella who says Fox isn't much of an option behind home plate
Fox playing defense is a game of trying to hide Fox on defense. Fox couldn’t even play catcher in the minors to a satisfactory level, so suggeting he is okay option at the big league level is very silly indeed.
$136 million payroll for a .500 style ballclub. Good work Jim.
I'm not claiming to be smarter than Lou Piniella.
I’m just reporting on what I’ve observed. I can tell you that Fox was excellent defensively in high school and excellent defensively at Michigan. I don’t think he fell off too much once he reached professional baseball.
Now, I know that he and Scott Servais butted heads when Fox was in the minor leagues, leading to a confrontation between the two. Jim Hendry and Oneri Fleita came down on Servais’ side, and around then was when Fox developed this “defensive liability” tag.
Fox is obviously rusty behind the plate, having played back there sparingly over the last two-plus seasons. That’s a decent reason to not play him behind the plate, I suppose.
Keep in mind that Lou Piniella had never seen Jake Fox catch except for a month in the spring of 2007. If you’re willing to say that that time frame was a sufficient amount of time for him to decide Fox was bad behind the plate, that’s fine.
I think Lou also heard Fox was a defensive liability from Hendry and Fleita, who may or may not have had other motives (that argument with Servais mainly) to keep Fox from catching.
With some work before the games, just as he did at third base, I’m confident that Jake Fox could catch a game or two, especially if he continues to hit and Koyie Hill does not.
I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg
From my sources
Servais was the Cubs Minor League catching instructor for a time and wanted Fox to change some of the things he did behind the plate (I don’t know what). Fox, who felt that the way he had been taught at Michigan (by Mike Matheny’s old coach), chafed at the suggestions.
Things escalated from there, with both parties telling the other how they felt about them. Jim Hendry and Oneri Fleita came down on Servais’ side and basically told Fox he wouldn’t reach the Major Leagues as a catcher in the Cubs system. Soon after, he became a “defensive liability.”
Both parties are at fault – Fox should have been more amenable to Servais, and Servais’ “my way or the highway” attitude didn’t help – had he recognized that Fox was receiving some good tutoring (from Matheny’s old coach), things may have been different.
I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg
he
caught 2 innings against the Cards in the double-header
Nutdrinkingamp12
Live Long and Prosper
by nutdrinkingamp12 on Jul 20, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
I generally prioritize defense pretty highly...
…but I’d roll the dice on Jake behind the plate occasionally to get his bat in the lineup. Or maybe Lou should try to get DLee, Aramis and Soriano on some kind of rotating rest schedule whereby Jake could just step into any of their positions.
I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.
I think the latter makes the most sense...
Give each of those guys a regular day off and get Fox in the lineup while his bat is hot, but do it at positions of less importance than catcher.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
