PDA

View Full Version : Cubs Trading for Lowell ?


Hangar18
05-30-2003, 11:27 AM
Somone on the Dodgers board is reporting a story in a FL paper that the Marlins are about to give away Lowell to the Cubs. Dodger fans are pissed. guess they want him also. I tried to post the link...but im digitally challenged....

CHISOXFAN13
05-30-2003, 11:32 AM
I hope to God this isn't true.

Spiff
05-30-2003, 11:39 AM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-mdeal30may30,0,3074375.story?coll=sfla-sports-front

see for yourself, but ugh why would the marlins want bobby hill?

Hangar18
05-30-2003, 11:43 AM
Isnt it amazing how the cubs have moved into the Upper Crust (spiritually anyway) of Teams that, when they Need a Replacement, they just go out and get it. THE MARLINS BETTER GET SOME DAMN GOOD PLAYERS IN RETURN.

LuvSox
05-30-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Spiff
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-mdeal30may30,0,3074375.story?coll=sfla-sports-front

see for yourself, but ugh why would the marlins want bobby hill?

Ah Damnit! I was hoping Hill would be a Cubbie for life. He's perfect for the job, a pathetic LOSER.

MRKARNO
05-30-2003, 11:54 AM
I'm guessing that it wont happen because all of the Cubs starters are off limits. If I were florida I would want Hill and Zambrano for Lowell, but Zambrano is supposedly "off-limits." I hope that the players that are off-limits end up being bad and hurt the Cubs chances of trading for anyone good. If it's cruz and Hill for Lowell, I'll be pissed at the Cubs' steal

Hangar18
05-30-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I'm guessing that it wont happen because all of the Cubs starters are off limits. If I were florida I would want Hill and Zambrano for Lowell, but Zambrano is supposedly "off-limits." I hope that the players that are off-limits end up being bad and hurt the Cubs chances of trading for anyone good. If it's cruz and Hill for Lowell, I'll be pissed at the Cubs' steal

Of course it will be a steal. Its the Cubs trading with the Florida Dumb Ass Marlins. that team NEEDS TO BE FOLDED. All theyve done the last 3yrs is give their players to the Cubs.......

Vsahajpal
05-30-2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I'm guessing that it wont happen because all of the Cubs starters are off limits. If I were florida I would want Hill and Zambrano for Lowell, but Zambrano is supposedly "off-limits." I hope that the players that are off-limits end up being bad and hurt the Cubs chances of trading for anyone good. If it's cruz and Hill for Lowell, I'll be pissed at the Cubs' steal

The Marlins are said to be very high on Cubs LHP prospect Andy Sisco...if that's their price, they can keep Lowell.

Hangar18
05-30-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
The Marlins are said to be very high on Cubs LHP prospect Andy Sisco...if that's their price, they can keep Lowell.

hey, no holding out on the cubs part now......They can give up a few guys to the Marlins and stock their "farm" system. The Marlins can make it up to their fans and themselves by Cleaning the Cubs out. They are dealing from Strength.....the Media is HOUNDING the cubs to get a Third Baseman (so all the Pre-Written stories about the world series wont go to waste this year) The Marlins should know the Media is in on this and MILK THIS GOOD for an extra player or two from the cubs. This team should stil be folded.

Hullett_Fan
05-30-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
The Marlins are said to be very high on Cubs LHP prospect Andy Sisco...if that's their price, they can keep Lowell.

Hey...hoping to hear from the other (semi) Cubs fan on the board (of course Sox are #1 with me).

Sisco is doing well and it's hard to part with a LH prospect. But I'd give up Hill, Cruz, Wellemeyer and Bellhorn for Lowell. If they threw in Castillo I'd think about giving up Sisco.


Even better if the Sox could get Lowell and Castillo for Rowand and Wright!!!!

:)

chisoxt
05-30-2003, 01:18 PM
Isnt it amazing how the cubs have moved into the Upper Crust (spiritually anyway) of Teams that, when they Need a Replacement, they just go out and get it. THE MARLINS BETTER GET SOME DAMN GOOD PLAYERS IN RETURN.

Most of it has to do with finanaces....You see a lot of imbalanced trades where one team is willing to unload a great player just because they do not want to pay him. And seemingly, the team gets almost nothing in return. The Cubs are in the enviuos poistion of a 'bargain shopper' and it will likely continue that way.

The Sox, BTW, are the opposite. To wit, the trade of Ray Durham to oakland for a rag-armed pitcher.

Vsahajpal
05-30-2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
Hey...hoping to hear from the other (semi) Cubs fan on the board (of course Sox are #1 with me).

Sisco is doing well and it's hard to part with a LH prospect. But I'd give up Hill, Cruz, Wellemeyer and Bellhorn for Lowell. If they threw in Castillo I'd think about giving up Sisco.


Even better if the Sox could get Lowell and Castillo for Rowand and Wright!!!!

:)


Glad you aren't Jim Hendry! Giving up that much talent for Lowell would be disastrous. Mike Lowell is a good player, that's about it.

Hullett_Fan
05-30-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Glad you aren't Jim Hendry! Giving up that much talent for Lowell would be disastrous. Mike Lowell is a good player, that's about it.

I meant Cruz or Wellemeyer. Not both. I'm not particularly high on Cruz. Sisco could end up being a superstar.

Lowell is awesome and I think he'd easily be a 40+ 100 RBI guy at Wrigley....exactly what the anemic Cubs 'O' needs to make the playoffs this year. He could be resigned for less than Rolen money and probably put up better numbers. Definitely better than Hillenbrand.

Vsahajpal
05-30-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
I meant Cruz or Wellemeyer. Not both. I'm not particularly high on Cruz. Sisco could end up being a superstar.

Lowell is awesome and I think he'd easily be a 40+ 100 RBI guy at Wrigley....exactly what the anemic Cubs 'O' needs to make the playoffs this year. He could be resigned for less than Rolen money and probably put up better numbers. Definitely better than Hillenbrand.


There's a myth that Wrigley is a hitter's park, it isn't at all. He's never topped 30 HR, so the likelihood of him reaching 40+ (he's already 29) is very, very small.

He's better than Hillenbrand, but that's not saying much.

Consider what the Cardinals gave up for a much better player in Rolen last year: An over the hill reliever, a soft tossing lefty, and Placido Polanco.

Hangar18
05-30-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Glad you aren't Jim Hendry! Giving up that much talent for Lowell would be disastrous. Mike Lowell is a good player, that's about it.


Id love to see all that talent go to the Marlins. Would make up for the horrible clement / alfatseca deal

Vsahajpal
05-30-2003, 02:29 PM
Marlins will probably end up winning that trade. Dontrelle Willis is the real mo'fn deal.

But don't let me stop you...continue.

xil357
05-30-2003, 03:38 PM
What on earth do you mean,

"There's a myth that Wrigley is a hitter's park, it isn't at all. He's never topped 30 HR, so the likelihood of him reaching 40+ (he's already 29) is very, very small."

That is the biggest load of horse puckey I've ever heard!

Consider these FACTS:

1. Chain-link "Sandberg" basket.
2. Power alleys that are closer to 360 feet and curve inward from the foul poles as you move toward center.
3. Tiny foul territory, reducing the possibility of foul pop/fly outs and extending plate appearances and the number of pitches thrown by pitchers.
4. Ivy, in which at least a dozen batted balls a year are lost.
5. Day games, with higher average game-time temperatures and therefore rising air (for those dipsticks who slept through third grade science, hot air rises).
6. Chicago has among the highest elevations of the major league cities. Of course its not as high as Colorado, but its up there with Atlanta. (Yes, this also impacts the Cell.)

Other than Colorado, because of its sheer mile-high altitude, Wrigley is about the most homer-friendly park in the majors. For goodness sake, MARK BELHORN had 27 homers in 2002!

Now it is possible that the way the playing surface is maintained (poorly) and the small dimensions reduce the number of triples and doubles that are hit there, but Wrigley is among the easiest major league parks in which to hit a homer, especially when the wind is blowing out, when a routine pop fly is driven out of the park.

Hangar18
05-30-2003, 03:47 PM
ahhhhhh yes,,,,,old Ryne "basket boy" Sandberg, he is the KING of the basket shot,
360 foot homer (imagine Caballo Standing in Left Center Field. That is where the Baskets reach out towards) For this reason,
Ryno better not make the hall of fame. Someone should really get a hold of all his footage, and count the number of "Basket" shots in his career.

xil357
05-30-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
ahhhhhh yes,,,,,old Ryne "basket boy" Sandberg, he is the KING of the basket shot,
360 foot homer (imagine Caballo Standing in Left Center Field. That is where the Baskets reach out towards) For this reason,
Ryno better not make the hall of fame. Someone should really get a hold of all his footage, and count the number of "Basket" shots in his career.

You have to give Ryne credit though. Maybe he belongs in the basketball Hall of Fame. He hit more three-point shots with a bat (from 360 feet) than Steve Kerr and John Paxson combined.

Iwritecode
05-30-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by xil357
What on earth do you mean,

"There's a myth that Wrigley is a hitter's park, it isn't at all. He's never topped 30 HR, so the likelihood of him reaching 40+ (he's already 29) is very, very small."

That is the biggest load of horse puckey I've ever heard!

Consider these FACTS:

1. Chain-link "Sandberg" basket.
2. Power alleys that are closer to 360 feet and curve inward from the foul poles as you move toward center.
3. Tiny foul territory, reducing the possibility of foul pop/fly outs and extending plate appearances and the number of pitches thrown by pitchers.
4. Ivy, in which at least a dozen batted balls a year are lost.
5. Day games, with higher average game-time temperatures and therefore rising air (for those dipsticks who slept through third grade science, hot air rises).
6. Chicago has among the highest elevations of the major league cities. Of course its not as high as Colorado, but its up there with Atlanta. (Yes, this also impacts the Cell.)

Other than Colorado, because of its sheer mile-high altitude, Wrigley is about the most homer-friendly park in the majors. For goodness sake, MARK BELHORN had 27 homers in 2002!

Now it is possible that the way the playing surface is maintained (poorly) and the small dimensions reduce the number of triples and doubles that are hit there, but Wrigley is among the easiest major league parks in which to hit a homer, especially when the wind is blowing out, when a routine pop fly is driven out of the park.

Does anyone have the stats that show # of homeruns hit in each park per year? IIRC, I saw a list like that once and Wrigley was surprisingly low on the list...

Hangar18
05-30-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Does anyone have the stats that show # of homeruns hit in each park per year? IIRC, I saw a list like that once and Wrigley was surprisingly low on the list...

i did see that. this is something thats happened in only the last few years.......before that, that place, the ball sailed out...by the Opponents.

xil357
05-30-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
i did see that. this is something thats happened in only the last few years.......before that, that place, the ball sailed out...by the Opponents.

That's because other than Sosa, the Cubs haven't had a legitimate power threat on their team over the past few years. Again, Mark Belhorn, Ryne Sandberg, Mark Grace, Andre Dawson, Dave Kingman, shall I go on?

That being said, I have to give props for Hendry and McPhail drafting strikeout pitchers. That's the only kind of staff you can have and succeed at Wrigley because they don't give up many fly balls. The way you build a team to win at Wrigley is lots of legitimate power hitters and strikeout pitchers.

The way to build a winning team at the Cell is strong pitching, great defense (especially up the middle) and high OPS doubles (and triples) hitters.

Vsahajpal
05-30-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by xil357
What on earth do you mean,

"There's a myth that Wrigley is a hitter's park, it isn't at all. He's never topped 30 HR, so the likelihood of him reaching 40+ (he's already 29) is very, very small."

That is the biggest load of horse puckey I've ever heard!

Consider these FACTS:

1. Chain-link "Sandberg" basket.
2. Power alleys that are closer to 360 feet and curve inward from the foul poles as you move toward center.
3. Tiny foul territory, reducing the possibility of foul pop/fly outs and extending plate appearances and the number of pitches thrown by pitchers.
4. Ivy, in which at least a dozen batted balls a year are lost.
5. Day games, with higher average game-time temperatures and therefore rising air (for those dipsticks who slept through third grade science, hot air rises).
6. Chicago has among the highest elevations of the major league cities. Of course its not as high as Colorado, but its up there with Atlanta. (Yes, this also impacts the Cell.)

Other than Colorado, because of its sheer mile-high altitude, Wrigley is about the most homer-friendly park in the majors. For goodness sake, MARK BELHORN had 27 homers in 2002!

Now it is possible that the way the playing surface is maintained (poorly) and the small dimensions reduce the number of triples and doubles that are hit there, but Wrigley is among the easiest major league parks in which to hit a homer, especially when the wind is blowing out, when a routine pop fly is driven out of the park.


Ah yes, wonderful job xil.


Check for yourself at baseball-reference.com. Recently (for the last 3 years) Wrigley has played as a pitcher's park. I'm sorry you have a hard time swallowing this fact, but I hope you can move on. Given the way balls are flying out of the new stadiums, it looks to remain that way.

According to Stats INC., the wind blows in 62% of the time, again, favoring the pitchers.

MarkEdward
05-30-2003, 05:25 PM
Park effects for Wrigley, 1992 to 2002:

92: 103/103
93: 102/102
94: 99/99
95: 96/97
96: 101/101
97: 102/102
98: 103/103
99: 107/106
00: 90/92
01: 96/97
02: 98/98

In the end, I suppose Wrigley ends up being neutral, but it's neither an extreme pitcher's or hitter's park.

DrCrawdad
05-30-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by xil357
What on earth do you mean,

"There's a myth that Wrigley is a hitter's park, it isn't at all. He's never topped 30 HR, so the likelihood of him reaching 40+ (he's already 29) is very, very small."

That is the biggest load of horse puckey I've ever heard!...

Believe it or not, I agree with Vic. Wrigley is a HR friendly park, when the wind is blowing out. IIRC though that's not the case most of the time.

MHOUSE
05-31-2003, 02:21 PM
Cruz and Hill for Lowell would be a steal by the Cubs. Sox should look into Wellemeyer, he has been good and is very young. I hope the Marlins make the Flubs throw in another minor leaguer to that deal because Cruz sucks and Hill hasn't proven anything.

Hangar18
05-31-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Ah yes, wonderful job xil.


Check for yourself at baseball-reference.com. Recently (for the last 3 years) Wrigley has played as a pitcher's park. I'm sorry you have a hard time swallowing this fact, but I hope you can move on. Given the way balls are flying out of the new stadiums, it looks to remain that way.

According to Stats INC., the wind blows in 62% of the time, again, favoring the pitchers.

Key Word here is "RECENTLY". I'll bet you (wind has to be factor thought I admit) if anyone of us took BP at club wrigley, we'd hit a few out of that dump. Everyone was hitting the ball out of that joint for years, because the cubs also had bad pitchers. Which is why I always Chuckle back when they picked up Howard Johnson to save them, the Media and the flub fans were ecstatic because he always Hit a Ton in Wrigley. Cub Fans forgot that it was because he was because he was FACING CUB PITCHING though heh heh. but as referenced earlier by XIL, the way the flubs are currently assembled, is the way to win there. Get Strikeout pitchers, so the other team isnt crushing the ball out like the old days, and get Guys that can aim the ball into the 360 foot power alleys (alex gonzalez is starting to figure that fact out...man is he going to be dangerous once he does) Sox are funny, they moved the fences in, and let their pitching get worse....
Bad Pitching + Closer Fences = Tons of Home Runs

Vsahajpal
05-31-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Sox should look into Wellemeyer, he has been good and is very young.

Look into what? That kid had better remain right where he is.

MHOUSE
06-01-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Look into what? That kid had better remain right where he is.

You can never have too many young arms who can start/relieve and have some MLB experience. He has been in 4-5 games and 7-8 innings with 11 or 12 strikeouts? That's some talent. I still think Valentin for Farnsworth would be a good idea.

Chisoxfn
06-01-2003, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Cruz and Hill for Lowell would be a steal by the Cubs. Sox should look into Wellemeyer, he has been good and is very young. I hope the Marlins make the Flubs throw in another minor leaguer to that deal because Cruz sucks and Hill hasn't proven anything.

Wellmeyer is a freaking stud. He comes in and strikes out the side every time I see him pitch. Great slider, fastball and I think he throws a curve. Only thing that he does is miss the place at times.

Damn though, he's really good. Cubs got some really really good arms to the point that they could lose Wood, Clement and Cruz and it wouldn't matter.

They'd be fools not to move Cruz. He's good, but they got a lot that are great. Still I'd love it if the Sox had a prospect like Cruz.

siugrad25
06-01-2003, 11:38 AM
According to ESPN, Matt Williams was released (designated for assignment). If the Cubs want a quick fix I guess they can go after an aging Williams for their World Series season. If the Sox had room for a cheap ph, I wouldn't mind having him. But I know that if I say the Sox should try picking him up, they'll be some 'what the hell are you thinking?' replys from the fans here. All I'm looking for is a few hits and I'm looking everywhere.


Here's the site:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0601/1561567.html

xil357
06-02-2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Ah yes, wonderful job xil.

Check for yourself at baseball-reference.com. Recently (for the last 3 years) Wrigley has played as a pitcher's park. I'm sorry you have a hard time swallowing this fact, but I hope you can move on. Given the way balls are flying out of the new stadiums, it looks to remain that way.

According to Stats INC., the wind blows in 62% of the time, again, favoring the pitchers.

Stats can be used to prove anything.

Outside of Sosa, there has not been a legitimate power threat on the Cubs for several years. Therefore, that lineup was/is going to hit fewer homers no matter what park they play in. They play 81 games per year in Wrigley. They play in EVERY game at Wrigley. Their stats count for half of what happens in Wrigley.

Do the stats to which you refer account for that by removing the home teams' statistics from all stadium-by-stadium comparisons?

Consider these hypotheticals:

Take Dodger Stadium, which we all agree is a pitchers park. If the Dodgers had Sosa, Bonds, A-Rod, Palmeiro, Soriano and Delgado in their lineup, playing in all 81 games in Dodger Stadium, their home run numbers would make Dodger Stadium look like a hitter's park.

Or, say the 85 Cardinals played in Coors Field. Their lack of power and Herzog's managerial style would make Coors look like a pitcher's park since they would play 81 games per year in Coors.

Even if the wind blows in 62 percent of the time, that doesn't mean it is howling from the Lake at 40 knots each time it blows in. It might blow in at 5 mph on many of those days, barely enough to move the flags and certainly not enough to overcome the tiny foul territory, the short power alleys, the Sandberg basket, the ivy, the altitude and the rising heated air of the daytime (but enough to add to the 62 percent of the time the wind blows in, making Wrigley a "pitcher's park).

Also, what about days that start out with the wind blowing one direction, then rapidly change direction as the weather either clears or turns nasty? What do you call it when four innings are played with wind blowing in and five innings with the wind blowing out? How many times have we seen Wrigley games start out as pitchers duels and turn into homer-fests when the weather changes, and vice versa for that matter? The wind is fickle and it alone does not overwhelm the other hitter-friendly factors. Strong winds are factors on days it blows hard.

The other thing is, the Wrigley grass is terrible and it is cut high to reduce the speed of ground balls, making it harder for balls to get through the infield (another thing that helped Sandberg -- it made him look even better defensively). That's going to cut down on base hits and might reduce the number of runs scored through means other than hitting homers. That also might cut down on the offense produced at Wrigley -- and statistically there might be fewer runners on base when homers are hit, but it has nothing to do with the power potential.

One of the things that people say they like about Wrigley is that they are "so close to the action." Well, you are close to the action because the field is so small!

Give me a break. If any one of us were given the opportunity to win $1 million to hit a home run in a major league ballpark, the first place we would pick is Coors and the second would be Wrigley.