Buster Olney Chat on ESPN.COM today:

[Abe Frohman]

Theriot hitting leadoff would be a bad thing. First of all, Fontenot is better, so even if it was a necessity because we had spent big on other upgrades he isn't the best option. Secondly, either of them in a spot where it's an absolute necessity that they get on base consistently is a poor gamble considering how poor the rest of the offense is.

 

Fontenot, in my opinion, is not a leadoff type. He has a lot more pop than Theriot, and tends to get a little "homer happy." Theriot and Fontenot are both pretty good prospects, which means we will never know their potential with Dusty Baker running the team.

 

I was disgusted to once again see Neifi Perez in the 2-hole tonight, despite his success against the Astros. Would have been nice to see Theriot get a little consistant action.

 

Fontenot also gets on base at a better clip, which is why he's better for any role in the lineup. That said, neither are great prospects considering their age and other shortcomings(Theriot's complete lack of power, Fontenot's defensive shortfalls/inflexibility), ideally they should be bench players on a good team.

 

Fontenot probably is a better overall prospect, and he does get on base at a better clip, but he strikes out a lot for a would-be leadoff man. He has good power for a guy his size - but I just don't think he is the leadoff type. The Cubs need a leadoff hitter in 2007 (assuming they do not sign Pierre - who will cost them $5-10 million a year), and could stand to give Theriot a consistant shot at 2nd Base the rest of the way in 06.

 

I just think that Theriot is a better fit than Fontenot for what the Cubs need. He can play SS and 2B, and most likely would be an average or better leadoff man.

 

Why does it really matter how many times a leadoff man strikes out as long as he's getting on base consistently?

 

Really? Contact is always a better option. Well, nearly always. It allows the defense to make errors, and it can sometimes result in moving a runner over into scoring postion. It can also mean a double-play, but a strikeout is an out 97% of the time.

 

Contact makes things happen.

 

Besides, if you look at Theriot's statistics, it is hard not to see how much he has improved offensively as he was bumped up to higher levels.

[Laura]

I know a lot of posters didn't want Baker fired because it wouldn't make a difference but is it possible that a new manager would have tried to put Murton in the 2 slot? I can't imagine for the life of me that an another manager would make the same exact horrible moves Baker makes day in and day out.

 

# 2 slot is reserved for Nefei.

 

Bruce asked Dusty about that.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Neifi up, Murton down: Neifi Perez made his second straight start Monday, this time in place of Cesar Izturis at shortstop.

 

Manager Dusty Baker said he based the decision in part on Perez being 10-for-24 against Astros pitcher Roy Oswalt entering the game.

 

However, Perez and his low on-base percentage of .266 batted second. Manager Dusty Baker was asked if left fielder Matt Murton (.362 OBP) was considered for second.

 

“No, not against Oswalt. Not when Neifi’s hitting .430-something against him or whatever it is,” Baker said. “There’s probably more temptation to move (outfielder Angel) Pagan in the 2-spot because of his speed and the fact he’s a switch hitter. No. We need production out of Murton and hopefully down in the order.

 

“He’s done pretty good down in the order, sixth or seventh, so you don’t really mess with it too much.”

 

Baker looked good Monday, as Perez singled twice and scored a run.

[CubColtPacer]

I know a lot of posters didn't want Baker fired because it wouldn't make a difference but is it possible that a new manager would have tried to put Murton in the 2 slot? I can't imagine for the life of me that an another manager would make the same exact horrible moves Baker makes day in and day out.

 

# 2 slot is reserved for Nefei.

 

Bruce asked Dusty about that.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Neifi up, Murton down: Neifi Perez made his second straight start Monday, this time in place of Cesar Izturis at shortstop.

 

Manager Dusty Baker said he based the decision in part on Perez being 10-for-24 against Astros pitcher Roy Oswalt entering the game.

 

However, Perez and his low on-base percentage of .266 batted second. Manager Dusty Baker was asked if left fielder Matt Murton (.362 OBP) was considered for second.

 

“No, not against Oswalt. Not when Neifi’s hitting .430-something against him or whatever it is,” Baker said. “There’s probably more temptation to move (outfielder Angel) Pagan in the 2-spot because of his speed and the fact he’s a switch hitter. No. We need production out of Murton and hopefully down in the order.

 

“He’s done pretty good down in the order, sixth or seventh, so you don’t really mess with it too much.”

 

Baker looked good Monday, as Perez singled twice and scored a run.

 

Well, let's see. I'm ok with the first part-Neifi has done a great job against Oswalt, and so I'm not unhappy about him starting in the 2 spot for that game. I'm fine with the end, because Murton might be producing and be more comfortable down in the order right now. The middle? Ridiculous-if anything, Pagan should have the same reason Murton has for staying down in the order-he's producing, so why move him? Instead, Dusty shows exactly what he wants out of the 2 spot-and I really don't understand even more then the speed why a switch hitter is so valuable at the 2 spot more then other spots in the lineup.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

There we go with that speed thing again.

 

Has Dusty not watched Murton run out ground balls this year or watch him go 1st to 3rd ? I think he might be the 2nd or 3rd best baserunner on the Cubs. Not the quickest, but he gets good reads, and runs everything out.

[jkrapfl]

Theriot hitting leadoff would be a bad thing. First of all, Fontenot is better, so even if it was a necessity because we had spent big on other upgrades he isn't the best option. Secondly, either of them in a spot where it's an absolute necessity that they get on base consistently is a poor gamble considering how poor the rest of the offense is.

 

Fontenot, in my opinion, is not a leadoff type. He has a lot more pop than Theriot, and tends to get a little "homer happy." Theriot and Fontenot are both pretty good prospects, which means we will never know their potential with Dusty Baker running the team.

 

I was disgusted to once again see Neifi Perez in the 2-hole tonight, despite his success against the Astros. Would have been nice to see Theriot get a little consistant action.

 

Fontenot also gets on base at a better clip, which is why he's better for any role in the lineup. That said, neither are great prospects considering their age and other shortcomings(Theriot's complete lack of power, Fontenot's defensive shortfalls/inflexibility), ideally they should be bench players on a good team.

 

Fontenot probably is a better overall prospect, and he does get on base at a better clip, but he strikes out a lot for a would-be leadoff man. He has good power for a guy his size - but I just don't think he is the leadoff type. The Cubs need a leadoff hitter in 2007 (assuming they do not sign Pierre - who will cost them $5-10 million a year), and could stand to give Theriot a consistant shot at 2nd Base the rest of the way in 06.

 

I just think that Theriot is a better fit than Fontenot for what the Cubs need. He can play SS and 2B, and most likely would be an average or better leadoff man.

 

Why does it really matter how many times a leadoff man strikes out as long as he's getting on base consistently?

 

Really? Contact is always a better option. Well, nearly always. It allows the defense to make errors, and it can sometimes result in moving a runner over into scoring postion. It can also mean a double-play, but a strikeout is an out 97% of the time.

 

Contact makes things happen.

 

Besides, if you look at Theriot's statistics, it is hard not to see how much he has improved offensively as he was bumped up to higher levels.

 

More often than not, the leadoff hitter will come up with nobody on base because they are either hitting behind the lowest OBP guys on the team or they are leading off the game. So, making contact in order to advance a runner is not as big of a deal as you make it seem in that case.

 

As for your argument about contact allowing the defense to make errors, I know this has been discussed many times on this board in the past, and it has been shown that errors just aren't a big enough part of the game where it even makes a difference. I don't have the stats to back that up, but I'm sure somebody on here can provide a source to corroborate this argument.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Theriot hitting leadoff would be a bad thing. First of all, Fontenot is better, so even if it was a necessity because we had spent big on other upgrades he isn't the best option. Secondly, either of them in a spot where it's an absolute necessity that they get on base consistently is a poor gamble considering how poor the rest of the offense is.

 

Fontenot, in my opinion, is not a leadoff type. He has a lot more pop than Theriot, and tends to get a little "homer happy." Theriot and Fontenot are both pretty good prospects, which means we will never know their potential with Dusty Baker running the team.

 

I was disgusted to once again see Neifi Perez in the 2-hole tonight, despite his success against the Astros. Would have been nice to see Theriot get a little consistant action.

 

Fontenot also gets on base at a better clip, which is why he's better for any role in the lineup. That said, neither are great prospects considering their age and other shortcomings(Theriot's complete lack of power, Fontenot's defensive shortfalls/inflexibility), ideally they should be bench players on a good team.

 

Fontenot probably is a better overall prospect, and he does get on base at a better clip, but he strikes out a lot for a would-be leadoff man. He has good power for a guy his size - but I just don't think he is the leadoff type. The Cubs need a leadoff hitter in 2007 (assuming they do not sign Pierre - who will cost them $5-10 million a year), and could stand to give Theriot a consistant shot at 2nd Base the rest of the way in 06.

 

I just think that Theriot is a better fit than Fontenot for what the Cubs need. He can play SS and 2B, and most likely would be an average or better leadoff man.

 

Why does it really matter how many times a leadoff man strikes out as long as he's getting on base consistently?

 

Really? Contact is always a better option. Well, nearly always. It allows the defense to make errors, and it can sometimes result in moving a runner over into scoring postion. It can also mean a double-play, but a strikeout is an out 97% of the time.

 

Contact makes things happen.

 

Besides, if you look at Theriot's statistics, it is hard not to see how much he has improved offensively as he was bumped up to higher levels.

 

More often than not, the leadoff hitter will come up with nobody on base because they are either hitting behind the lowest OBP guys on the team or they are leading off the game. So, making contact in order to advance a runner is not as big of a deal as you make it seem in that case.

 

As for your argument about contact allowing the defense to make errors, I know this has been discussed many times on this board in the past, and it has been shown that errors just aren't a big enough part of the game where it even makes a difference. I don't have the stats to back that up, but I'm sure somebody on here can provide a source to corroborate this argument.

 

Correct. You won't see a guy who makes more contact suddenly jump more in OBP because of errors. In fact, the opposite is true since often times guys who strike out a good bit are also the most patient and walk more.

[Abe Frohman]

Theriot hitting leadoff would be a bad thing. First of all, Fontenot is better, so even if it was a necessity because we had spent big on other upgrades he isn't the best option. Secondly, either of them in a spot where it's an absolute necessity that they get on base consistently is a poor gamble considering how poor the rest of the offense is.

 

Fontenot, in my opinion, is not a leadoff type. He has a lot more pop than Theriot, and tends to get a little "homer happy." Theriot and Fontenot are both pretty good prospects, which means we will never know their potential with Dusty Baker running the team.

 

I was disgusted to once again see Neifi Perez in the 2-hole tonight, despite his success against the Astros. Would have been nice to see Theriot get a little consistant action.

 

Fontenot also gets on base at a better clip, which is why he's better for any role in the lineup. That said, neither are great prospects considering their age and other shortcomings(Theriot's complete lack of power, Fontenot's defensive shortfalls/inflexibility), ideally they should be bench players on a good team.

 

Fontenot probably is a better overall prospect, and he does get on base at a better clip, but he strikes out a lot for a would-be leadoff man. He has good power for a guy his size - but I just don't think he is the leadoff type. The Cubs need a leadoff hitter in 2007 (assuming they do not sign Pierre - who will cost them $5-10 million a year), and could stand to give Theriot a consistant shot at 2nd Base the rest of the way in 06.

 

I just think that Theriot is a better fit than Fontenot for what the Cubs need. He can play SS and 2B, and most likely would be an average or better leadoff man.

 

Why does it really matter how many times a leadoff man strikes out as long as he's getting on base consistently?

 

Really? Contact is always a better option. Well, nearly always. It allows the defense to make errors, and it can sometimes result in moving a runner over into scoring postion. It can also mean a double-play, but a strikeout is an out 97% of the time.

 

Contact makes things happen.

 

Besides, if you look at Theriot's statistics, it is hard not to see how much he has improved offensively as he was bumped up to higher levels.

 

More often than not, the leadoff hitter will come up with nobody on base because they are either hitting behind the lowest OBP guys on the team or they are leading off the game. So, making contact in order to advance a runner is not as big of a deal as you make it seem in that case.

 

As for your argument about contact allowing the defense to make errors, I know this has been discussed many times on this board in the past, and it has been shown that errors just aren't a big enough part of the game where it even makes a difference. I don't have the stats to back that up, but I'm sure somebody on here can provide a source to corroborate this argument.

 

Correct. You won't see a guy who makes more contact suddenly jump more in OBP because of errors. In fact, the opposite is true since often times guys who strike out a good bit are also the most patient and walk more.

 

Sometimes, a productive at bat does not show up in a hitter's average and OB%. When you ground out 4 to 3 with a runner on 2nd who advances to third, that is still an 0-1, but you have moved the runner over.

 

My point is, Theriot makes more contact than Fontenot, yet still has about as good an OB%. Fontenot hits for a little more power, but is a 100+ strikeout guy.

 

When you have a man in scoring position, striking out never helps. A ground ball or fly ball can. That is pretty basic baseball.

[Andy]

I know a lot of posters didn't want Baker fired because it wouldn't make a difference but is it possible that a new manager would have tried to put Murton in the 2 slot? I can't imagine for the life of me that an another manager would make the same exact horrible moves Baker makes day in and day out.

 

# 2 slot is reserved for Nefei.

 

Bruce asked Dusty about that.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Neifi up, Murton down: Neifi Perez made his second straight start Monday, this time in place of Cesar Izturis at shortstop.

 

Manager Dusty Baker said he based the decision in part on Perez being 10-for-24 against Astros pitcher Roy Oswalt entering the game.

 

However, Perez and his low on-base percentage of .266 batted second. Manager Dusty Baker was asked if left fielder Matt Murton (.362 OBP) was considered for second.

 

“No, not against Oswalt. Not when Neifi’s hitting .430-something against him or whatever it is,” Baker said. “There’s probably more temptation to move (outfielder Angel) Pagan in the 2-spot because of his speed and the fact he’s a switch hitter. No. We need production out of Murton and hopefully down in the order.

 

“He’s done pretty good down in the order, sixth or seventh, so you don’t really mess with it too much.”

 

Baker looked good Monday, as Perez singled twice and scored a run.

Oh, Dusty. Dusty, Dusty, Dusty.

[jjgman21]

I know a lot of posters didn't want Baker fired because it wouldn't make a difference but is it possible that a new manager would have tried to put Murton in the 2 slot? I can't imagine for the life of me that an another manager would make the same exact horrible moves Baker makes day in and day out.

 

# 2 slot is reserved for Nefei.

 

Bruce asked Dusty about that.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Neifi up, Murton down: Neifi Perez made his second straight start Monday, this time in place of Cesar Izturis at shortstop.

 

Manager Dusty Baker said he based the decision in part on Perez being 10-for-24 against Astros pitcher Roy Oswalt entering the game.

 

However, Perez and his low on-base percentage of .266 batted second. Manager Dusty Baker was asked if left fielder Matt Murton (.362 OBP) was considered for second.

 

“No, not against Oswalt. Not when Neifi’s hitting .430-something against him or whatever it is,” Baker said. “There’s probably more temptation to move (outfielder Angel) Pagan in the 2-spot because of his speed and the fact he’s a switch hitter. No. We need production out of Murton and hopefully down in the order.

 

“He’s done pretty good down in the order, sixth or seventh, so you don’t really mess with it too much.”

 

Baker looked good Monday, as a squirrel found a nut in Houston.

Oh, Dusty. Dusty, Dusty, Dusty.

 

fixed.

 

an overly aggressive hacker who refuses to draw a walk got a couple hits against a guy who is always around the strikezone? I'm shocked.

[jkrapfl]

Sometimes, a productive at bat does not show up in a hitter's average and OB%. When you ground out 4 to 3 with a runner on 2nd who advances to third, that is still an 0-1, but you have moved the runner over.

 

My point is, Theriot makes more contact than Fontenot, yet still has about as good an OB%. Fontenot hits for a little more power, but is a 100+ strikeout guy.

 

When you have a man in scoring position, striking out never helps. A ground ball or fly ball can. That is pretty basic baseball.

 

But you can't quantify "productive" at-bats by comparing the number of strikeouts for two random hitters. Using your scenario, how does the number of strikeouts a person has correlate with the number of times they advanced a runner from second to third?

[USSoccer]

What's especially hilarious about Baker's commet is that he talks about not wanting to mess with a guy's spot in the order too much, but how many different spots did Corey Patterson hit in 2004-5? How often was Michael Barrett shuffled around in 2004-5?

[Abe Frohman]

Sometimes, a productive at bat does not show up in a hitter's average and OB%. When you ground out 4 to 3 with a runner on 2nd who advances to third, that is still an 0-1, but you have moved the runner over.

 

My point is, Theriot makes more contact than Fontenot, yet still has about as good an OB%. Fontenot hits for a little more power, but is a 100+ strikeout guy.

 

When you have a man in scoring position, striking out never helps. A ground ball or fly ball can. That is pretty basic baseball.

 

But you can't quantify "productive" at-bats by comparing the number of strikeouts for two random hitters. Using your scenario, how does the number of strikeouts a person has correlate with the number of times they advanced a runner from second to third?

 

Since we are talking about Theriot and Fontenot, my point is this: both have good OB% over the course of their minor league careers. Fontenot has more power, but strikes out more. Theriot has less power, but makes more contact (strikes out less).

 

It is pretty easy to see who puts the ball in play more. That is all I am saying. Not that one is better than the other, but that I will take a contact hitter that gets on base a lot over a guy who gets on base a lot despite the propensity to strike out a lot.

 

Unless his name is Jim Thome.

[CuseCubFan69]

What's especially hilarious about Baker's commet is that he talks about not wanting to mess with a guy's spot in the order too much, but how many different spots did Corey Patterson hit in 2004-5? How often was Michael Barrett shuffled around in 2004-5?

 

Only when it suits him USS...only when it suits him.

[jkrapfl]

Sometimes, a productive at bat does not show up in a hitter's average and OB%. When you ground out 4 to 3 with a runner on 2nd who advances to third, that is still an 0-1, but you have moved the runner over.

 

My point is, Theriot makes more contact than Fontenot, yet still has about as good an OB%. Fontenot hits for a little more power, but is a 100+ strikeout guy.

 

When you have a man in scoring position, striking out never helps. A ground ball or fly ball can. That is pretty basic baseball.

 

But you can't quantify "productive" at-bats by comparing the number of strikeouts for two random hitters. Using your scenario, how does the number of strikeouts a person has correlate with the number of times they advanced a runner from second to third?

 

Since we are talking about Theriot and Fontenot, my point is this: both have good OB% over the course of their minor league careers. Fontenot has more power, but strikes out more. Theriot has less power, but makes more contact (strikes out less).

 

It is pretty easy to see who puts the ball in play more. That is all I am saying. Not that one is better than the other, but that I will take a contact hitter that gets on base a lot over a guy who gets on base a lot despite the propensity to strike out a lot.

 

Unless his name is Jim Thome.

 

And my point is that just because a guy makes contact doesn't mean it is a quality at-bat. Do you want somebody that is going to go up and swing at the first pitch every time or do you want somebody that is willing to work the count? Chances are, a guy that is willing to be patient and work the count is going to strikeout a fair amount of times, but he is also giving himself a much better opportunity to get a pitch that he can do something with.

[Andy]

What's especially hilarious about Baker's commet is that he talks about not wanting to mess with a guy's spot in the order too much, but how many different spots did Corey Patterson hit in 2004-5? How often was Michael Barrett shuffled around in 2004-5?

Forget 2004-5, look how much Jones or Barrett to name two have been shuffled this year or even this month. Barrett has batted anywhere from 3rd to 6th just in the last few games, and Jones has batted from 3rd to 7th this year.

[Abe Frohman]

 

And my point is that just because a guy makes contact doesn't mean it is a quality at-bat. Do you want somebody that is going to go up and swing at the first pitch every time or do you want somebody that is willing to work the count? Chances are, a guy that is willing to be patient and work the count is going to strikeout a fair amount of times, but he is also giving himself a much better opportunity to get a pitch that he can do something with.

 

Have you watched Theriot's at-bats? He works the pitcher just like you say. He doesn't seem to be a Nomar up there swinging at the first pitch. I don't know, I just find it refreshing to see a "young player" getting good at-bats. Just something I have noticed in Theriot. Being a LSU fan, I guess I am just a little biased (despite the fact that Theriot and Fontenot were teammates for LSU).

 

I honestly never thought Theriot would be anything more than a A+ or maybe AA player. You never know how a guy will develope, though.

[Warpticon]

Sometimes, a productive at bat does not show up in a hitter's average and OB%. When you ground out 4 to 3 with a runner on 2nd who advances to third, that is still an 0-1, but you have moved the runner over.

 

My point is, Theriot makes more contact than Fontenot, yet still has about as good an OB%. Fontenot hits for a little more power, but is a 100+ strikeout guy.

 

When you have a man in scoring position, striking out never helps. A ground ball or fly ball can. That is pretty basic baseball.

 

It's also pretty basic baseball that leadoff hitters don't come up that often with runners on, so that really shouldn't be much of a consideration when deciding which of two players to lead off.

 

Yes, good things can happen when making contact, but not enough to offset a significant difference in measurable production. We're not talking a slight difference here--we're talking a 40 to 60 point difference in SLG. That means that Fontenot is worth an extra 1/20th of a base every time he has an at-bat versus what Theriot provides, whether he strikes out or not. That's very, very significant.

 

How significant is the extra contact Theriot makes? THe stuff supposedly beyond the numbers? Let's see.

 

Theriot is striking out once per 8.24 at-bats. Fontenot K's once per 4.92 ABs. Over a 550 at-bat stretch, those numbers extrapolate to 112 K's for Fontenot and 67 K's for Theriot. That's a difference of 45 strikeouts. So how much extra opportunity is Fontenot getting to be productive in those 45 additional times making contact? Not much.

 

First of all, an out is only productive with runners on, and usually with them in running position, as tags on fly balls or advances on grounders are rare with a man on first, and most of those turn into double plays--certainly not a productive out at all. So the situation that becomes meaningful is when a runner gets in scoring position. Obviously all of those 45 at-bats won't be with runners in scoring position. In fact, history shows that usually around a quarter or less will be, and it's even more futile for a leadoff hitter. So that's a maximum reasonable expectation of 12 or 13 at-bats in which Theriot would have a chance to advance a runner that Fontenot could not have over the course of an entire season. I don't have access to the productive out/productive out opportunity rates to guess how successful Theriot would be, but it's safe to say he won't be successful every time. Even assuming he had a 100% success rate, you're still talking about advancing 12 or 13 more runners per year, max, than Fontenot. And for all that extra production, you gave up a better OBP and a significantly better SLG?

 

Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

[Abe Frohman]

Sometimes, a productive at bat does not show up in a hitter's average and OB%. When you ground out 4 to 3 with a runner on 2nd who advances to third, that is still an 0-1, but you have moved the runner over.

 

My point is, Theriot makes more contact than Fontenot, yet still has about as good an OB%. Fontenot hits for a little more power, but is a 100+ strikeout guy.

 

When you have a man in scoring position, striking out never helps. A ground ball or fly ball can. That is pretty basic baseball.

 

It's also pretty basic baseball that leadoff hitters don't come up that often with runners on, so that really shouldn't be much of a consideration when deciding which of two players to lead off.

 

Yes, good things can happen when making contact, but not enough to offset a significant difference in measurable production. We're not talking a slight difference here--we're talking a 40 to 60 point difference in SLG. That means that Fontenot is worth an extra 1/20th of a base every time he has an at-bat versus what Theriot provides, whether he strikes out or not. That's very, very significant.

 

How significant is the extra contact Theriot makes? THe stuff supposedly beyond the numbers? Let's see.

 

Theriot is striking out once per 8.24 at-bats. Fontenot K's once per 4.92 ABs. Over a 550 at-bat stretch, those numbers extrapolate to 112 K's for Fontenot and 67 K's for Theriot. That's a difference of 45 strikeouts. So how much extra opportunity is Fontenot getting to be productive in those 45 additional times making contact? Not much.

 

First of all, an out is only productive with runners on, and usually with them in running position, as tags on fly balls or advances on grounders are rare with a man on first, and most of those turn into double plays--certainly not a productive out at all. So the situation that becomes meaningful is when a runner gets in scoring position. Obviously all of those 45 at-bats won't be with runners in scoring position. In fact, history shows that usually around a quarter or less will be, and it's even more futile for a leadoff hitter. So that's a maximum reasonable expectation of 12 or 13 at-bats in which Theriot would have a chance to advance a runner that Fontenot could not have over the course of an entire season. I don't have access to the productive out/productive out opportunity rates to guess how successful Theriot would be, but it's safe to say he won't be successful every time. Even assuming he had a 100% success rate, you're still talking about advancing 12 or 13 more runners per year, max, than Fontenot. And for all that extra production, you gave up a better OBP and a significantly better SLG?

 

Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

 

If I shaved $20 off the top, would you consider it?

[biittner77]

Lost in all the Theriot/ Fontenot discussion is the fact that the Cubs derostered Fontenot and have not seen fit to put him back on the 40 man over seriously consider promoting him.

 

In a perfect world he could replace Perez. Perhaps next season Hendry will be able to dump Perez somewhere but that may be wishful thinking.