Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Thurs 12/7 First Hour
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=156&t=8336		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Bud Dude [ Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Thurs 12/7 First Hour
This is freakin awesome. Once again Murph is proving that he is the #1 host on the score when it comes to talkin baseball. Great show today Murph.
Author:  Sleuth [ Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
You have a different radio then I do?
Author:  Stinkfinger The Crow [ Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think he got his radio at the same stores that sells TVs that make Kyle Orton look like an adequate quarterback.
Author:  Ugueth Will Shiv You [ Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Zing.

Is it possible to have a drinking game where every time Murphy refers to himself in the third-person you get to punch your co-worker in the face?
Author:  Sleuth [ Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Counselor Murph
Author:  Brian's Mojito [ Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Was that the hour that Murph used an e-mail to make a poor point.
Lilly's ERA was better than four of the White Sox starters last year.
So what, the starting staff was awful in 2006 -- one of the key reasons for their demise. That makes the 4.37 a quality stat?
Please. If his numbers were better than the 2005 staff -- or even close -- then there's a point.
By the way, Lilly had a 5.56 mark in '05, well off the sub-4's the White Sox main starting four put up.
Sorry, but just throwing money at the problem doesn't mean that you're solving the problem.
Shorty George pops in about possibly getting Jeff Suppan.
Too bad Jeff Weaver isn't available.
Come on guys. This is a joke.
When this team fails -- and there's a good chance that will happen with their starting staff -- management will get a lot of heat.
I'm sure Murph and Ofman will be two guys leading the way.
Murph was even upset at Joe Cowley, "how can he make statement about the Cubs over spending, he's the White Sox writer." So what, he's still a thinking human being who can have his own opinions.
Author:  Hawkeye Vince [ Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
The only saving grace for Lilly is that an NL adjusted ERA might be in the mid to high 3's
Author:  Brian's Mojito [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:12 am ]
Post subject: 
The guy's ERA was over five the year before -- and now he's going to playing a lot of games at Wrigley.
I think you're really stretching it.
Author:  good dolphin [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not only that cactus, he has never had an ERA below 4.

Last year was a contract push year for Lilly and he still was not all that good.
Author:  enigma [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lilly's ERA, though, is comparable to Jon Garland's over the past 4 years.
In fact three of the last four years he has had a lower ERA.

However, Garland has been more of an inning's eater than Lilly.

I would have rather spent the money for Zito but Lilly should be an improvement over the revolving door of starters the Cubs used last year
Jerome Williams, Jae Kuk Ryu, Juan Mateo, Guzman, Rusch
Author:  Hawkeye Vince [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm a Sox fan, but this deal made sense for the Cubs. Did anyone see the deal that Schmidt got? Is it 16 or 17M a year for a guy who's arm isn't what it used to be. Throw one of those 88 MPH heaters up in the zone and wait for the fans to toss it back.

Lilly is a good #3 (although he will be called on as a 2 right now) who will eat innings, keep the team in games and win 12-18 games next year on the Northside at a lower price than Schmidt or Zito. It also helps as a backup in case marshall or hill regress this year.
Author:  good dolphin [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
enigma wrote:
Lilly's ERA, though, is comparable to Jon Garland's over the past 4 years.
In fact three of the last four years he has had a lower ERA.



Garland just turned 27 while Lilly is about to turn 31. Those 4 years you speak of should be the prime part Lilly's career. They were the developmental years for Garland. It's not even worth a comparison.
Author:  good dolphin [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
:roll:

Then go ahead and believe Lilly is comparable to Garland. I'm not going to waste the time typing about it.
Author:  enigma [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not every pitcher hits their potential in their 20's.

Curt Schilling, Jamie Moyer are two players that come to mind that pitched their best baseball over the age of 30.

Derek Lowe didn't become a major league starter until he was 29.

Woody Williams didn't have his first 10 win season until the age of 31, he now has seven 10 win seasons.
Author:  hootmon [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Curt Schilling, Jamie Moyer are two players that come to mind that pitched their best baseball over the age of 30.

Derek Lowe didn't become a major league starter until he was 29.

Woody Williams didn't have his first 10 win season until the age of 31, he now has seven 10 win seasons.


And none of them did it pitching at Wrigley. Face it folks, the ballpark can rattle many pitchers who come in with potential and leave as failures.
Author:  Tall Midget [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
So basically hootmon and enigma are counting on Lilly to be the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Good luck with that.
Author:  enigma [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
So basically hootmon and enigma are counting on Lilly to be the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Good luck with that.


Believe me, I am not overjoyed with the signing of Lilly, as I said earlier I would have tried to sign Zito first. Is Lilly going to improve dramatically the next few years, probably not. But if he can keep his ERA at 4.00 in the NL and win 13-14 games next year, it will be an improvement over what the Cubs trotted out most of last year.
Author:  enigma [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sorry let me try that again.

Quote:
So basically hootmon and enigma are counting on Lilly to be the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Good luck with that.


Believe me, I am not overjoyed with the signing of Lilly, as I said earlier I would have tried to sign Zito first. Is Lilly going to improve dramatically the next few years, probably not. But if he can keep his ERA at 4.00 in the NL and win 13-14 games next year, it will be an improvement over what the Cubs trotted out most of last year.
Author:  hootmon [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
So basically hootmon and enigma are counting on Lilly to be the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Good luck with that.


Actually, my point is that I cannot at the moment think of any pitchers who came to the Cubs and blossomed at Wrigley Field after the age of 29 or 30. I think with Lilly, what you see is what you get. I expect maybe 10-12 wins (with equal losses) and ERA of about 4.00 to 4.5. I would consider him a fourth starter at best.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/