GO
Old PostsCubs in '10 (1/1/10 - 4/28/10)
CurtOne - Jan 1, 2010 11:28 am
Edited by Dave23 May 20, 2010 8:19 am
(2941 previous messages)
- Apr 28, 2010 11:02 am (#2942 of 2952)
I dont think that it is a given that lee and ramirez turn it around.
Lee started off the season hot (eight game hitting streak and .324/.439/.618/1.057 through the first ten games) but, as teams saw that Ramirez was hitting like a girl, they started to pitch to Lee differently. Lee has 9 walks in the last nine games.
Now that Ramirez isn't hitting fourth behind him (and may be coming out of his funk anyway) Lee can get some protection. Yesterday Lee had some really good swings and had two really good plays made against him.
Ramirez has been just awful. He seemed to be pressing and he had said he was trying to hit five run home runs with the bases empty. Maybe because the team wasn't scoring runs but who knows. His career K % is around 15% and he had struck out 35% as of four games ago.
He's got that down to 29% now (1 K in his last 17 AB) and has one hit in each of those four games. Typically ARam does not strike out much when he is slumping so there is some room for concern (he usually hits a soft fly balls to 2B/RF). Hopefully he's made his correction though.
It'd be nice to have both of those two swinging their typical Cub bats (Lee .302/.383/.535/.918/132 OPS+ as a Cub and ARam .299/.364/.544/.908/128 OPS+ since 2004).
brjones - Apr 28, 2010 11:13 am (#2943 of 2952)
Ramirez has hit a ton of hard hit balls the last 4-5 games or so, but they're not falling. Hopefully his luck will change soon.
CurtOne
- Apr 28, 2010 11:29 am (#2944 of 2952)
Your other "must have" (36-y/o Chan Ho Park) is on the DL after only 3 games
Is he still out with diarrhea?
- Apr 28, 2010 11:45 am (#2945 of 2952)
Money talks. Top the Nats' $3.5 and you've got Capps.
Money talks and closers can make far more in the free agent market than set-up men. Capps will be a free agent at the end of this year and he signed a one-year deal as a closer so he could sign a more lucrative, long-term deal as a closer after this year. Of course the Cubs could have offered him a closer deal but that would have been stupid.
Nobody I suggested was a "must have." My point during the entire off-season was that the bullpen was going to be problem unless Hendry did something significant.
And one of those "significant" things that YOU suggested ( I recall Capps and Park) is on the DL since mid-month and isn't coming off any time soon. You suggested back then that "money talks" and perhaps he would have said no to the Yankees if the Cubs had offered more of it. That would have been more “money talking” in the DL hole.
Scotti and most others on the board thought the bullpen was fine, as constituted. Just give the kids a chance. So, far, those folks have been wrong.
Its a long season and throwing 3, 4, 5 million at aging set-up men or failed closers with 5.80 ERA's isn't the answer.
Of course, Cubs did do something significant--they had to move Z into the bullpen.
And that at zero dollars. Meaning they have the 3-5 million that you would have spent available now and in June (if the money ever existed in the first place).
If you think that was the way to go back in November, my hats off to you.
None of us had to think that that was the move they would have made back then. Most of us talked of the 8 guys in the starting rotation competition in the spring and said that the extra guys with the experienced bullpen guys (Marmol, Marshall, Grabow) and the kids and farm would, over time, prove itself and that there are always guys floating around who were let go by other teams (ala Cruz).
So, what we were saying was that in-house (and Z is in-house), the farm and scrapheap-type guys were going to get the job done better than throwing limited monies at risky gambles.
You are suggesting that, because one of your gambles has paid off thus far, that you were right even though you have no idea how much money it would have taken to get that gamble and you also would have gambled on out bidding the Yankees to sign an aging dude that is currently on the DL. Your Capps/Park gamble looks 50/50 at this point. That is not a good gamble with limited resources. Excuse me for not being impressed.
Reb66
- Apr 28, 2010 2:17 pm (#2946 of 2952)
>So, what we were saying was that in-house (and Z is in-house), the farm and scrapheap-type guys were going to get the job done better than throwing limited monies at risky gambles...<<
Amazing to me that even with 20-20 hindsight, anybody can argue that Cubs had a successful off-season with regard to the bullpen.
They didn't. The bullpen has been a big problem and having to put Z into the bullpen to help solve the problem is basically an admission by management that desperate measures are required---because of the nonaction in the off-season.
That was my point for five months. I am not harping on this. Now that everybody has got to see Capps in the Nats series, I simply pointed out, in a previous post, that he would look good for the Cubs.
And, Cubs could have got him if they went after him hard. He wanted to come to the Cubs until Nats stepped up and showed more interest than the Cubs.
In any case, the primary point is not whether X should have been signed over Y. Some folks had other preferences. Fine. Nobody can anticipate hamstring injuries, as in the case of Park.
The primary point is whether the Cubs did a poor job in the off-season addressing the bullpen, essentially doing next to nothing. They should have addressed an obvious problem--and didn't.
Maybe things will change, but the bullpen has already cost us some wins and Z, out of necessity, is out of the rotation.
One would think there would be some limits to Scotti's boundless boosterism for everything Hendry, but it appears there are none. I like Hendry, for the most part, but he screwed up on this one. I'm guessing that, in private, he would tell you the same thing.
- Apr 28, 2010 2:19 pm (#2947 of 2952)
JBN I must agree. This team is just not really that good.
CurtOne
- Apr 28, 2010 2:19 pm (#2948 of 2952)
ESPNChicago.com's Bruce Levine, who is as dialed on the Chicago Cubs as anyone reporter is with any team in any sport, writes today that top prospect Starlin Castro could join the Cubs at any point, but that current shortstop Ryan Theriot may not be the casualty.
Levin suggests that perhaps Theriot simply moves to second base when Castro gets the call, especially since Theriot has turned it up with the bat of late and second baseman Mike Fontenot continues to struggle.
Castro is hitting .370 in Double-A Tennessee, while Theriot has 17 hits in his last 36 at-bats to do more than just stave off Castro for a little while.
Play Two
- Apr 28, 2010 2:23 pm (#2949 of 2952)
It would sure be nice to have a bit more speed and defense, both of which Castro would bring I believe. I can't say I would object to having him brought up given the deficiencies of the current roster.
Reb66
- Apr 28, 2010 2:28 pm (#2950 of 2952)
Ramirez and Lee have to hit for the Cubs to have a good offense.
They are hitting .155 and .203, respectively. That is the problem with the offense.
That is going to change. They are not going to hit anything close to that this season.
At some point, Castro will be up and that will help the club too. I think we are very fortunate that we have a guy who can upgrade at a position where Cubs are weak.
- Apr 28, 2010 2:36 pm (#2951 of 2952)
I have an idea move the cold hitters down and hot hitters up.
CurtOne
- Apr 28, 2010 2:37 pm (#2952 of 2952)
They are not going to hit anything close to that this season.
They're both dropping below .150?
Cubs in '10 (1/1/10 - 4/28/10)