Trib says Figgins could come to Chi-town

[RichHillIsABeast]

It eliminates the need for guys like Macias and Bynum,

 

There is no need to eliminate a need that never existed.

 

You don't need positional flexibility off the bench?

 

They sucked offensively. No argument there.

 

There is no need for guys who can play 7 positions, and play them poorly, without hitting a lick. The Cubs treated Macias's "ability" to play both IF and OF as a value worth paying extra for, when, in fact, there was no value. The only time you might need such a player, is during the course of one game, when multiple guys gets injured. But you are much better off just plugging in guys at positions for that one game, and then calling up somebody from AAA if you need them later. It's stupid to guarantee roster spots and significant money to players based on their ability to go anywhere in the field.

 

Your bench should be able to hit, first and foremost. If you get into a position where you need such a crappy utility guy, call up somebody from the minors the next day. Don't waste the 161 games for the insurance of that 1 game where they might help you.

 

You have 8 positions and how many bench spots? Positional flexibility is a numerical necessity.

 

Where did I say that I advocated guys who couldn't hit on the bench? Where?

[fromthestretch]

It eliminates the need for guys like Macias and Bynum,

 

There is no need to eliminate a need that never existed.

 

You don't need positional flexibility off the bench?

 

They sucked offensively. No argument there.

 

There is no need for guys who can play 7 positions, and play them poorly, without hitting a lick. The Cubs treated Macias's "ability" to play both IF and OF as a value worth paying extra for, when, in fact, there was no value. The only time you might need such a player, is during the course of one game, when multiple guys gets injured. But you are much better off just plugging in guys at positions for that one game, and then calling up somebody from AAA if you need them later. It's stupid to guarantee roster spots and significant money to players based on their ability to go anywhere in the field.

 

Your bench should be able to hit, first and foremost. If you get into a position where you need such a crappy utility guy, call up somebody from the minors the next day. Don't waste the 161 games for the insurance of that 1 game where they might help you.

 

You have 8 positions and how many bench spots? Positional flexibility is a numerical necessity.

 

Where did I say that I advocated guys who couldn't hit on the bench? Where?

 

I don't necessarily think you need guys capable of playing several different positions. In the NL, if you carry 11 pitchers instead of 12, you have six bench spots. You could have a catcher, a 3B, a CF, a SS, a corner outfielder, and 2B. There's a good chance the 3B (or possibly even the corner outfielder) could serve as a backup at 1B. You don't need someone that can play six different positions without playing any of them particularly well.

[goonys evil twin]

You have 8 positions and how many bench spots? Positional flexibility is a numerical necessity.

 

Where did I say that I advocated guys who couldn't hit on the bench? Where?

 

You said there was a need for guys like Macias and Bynum. And you ridiculed the notion that there was no need for such players.

 

There are 8 specific positions, but no need for a player who can play all 8.

 

2 backup OFers, one who can play CF in a pinch, 2 backup infielders, 1 backup catcher. And a 6th player should be around as a wild card, hopefully somebody who can really hit. You don't need to be 3 deep at 2B. There is no numerical necessity for guys who can play all over the field.

[CubinNY]

You don't need someone that can play six different positions without playing any of them particularly well.

 

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

 

A team needs guys on the bench who have some pop and can hit a fastball. And they need a backup catcher. Anyone else can be brought up.

[RichHillIsABeast]

You have 8 positions and how many bench spots? Positional flexibility is a numerical necessity.

 

Where did I say that I advocated guys who couldn't hit on the bench? Where?

 

You said there was a need for guys like Macias and Bynum. And you ridiculed the notion that there was no need for such players.

 

There are 8 specific positions, but no need for a player who can play all 8.

 

2 backup OFers, one who can play CF in a pinch, 2 backup infielders, 1 backup catcher. And a 6th player should be around as a wild card, hopefully somebody who can really hit. You don't need to be 3 deep at 2B. There is no numerical necessity for guys who can play all over the field.

 

I never said there was a need for guys like Macias and Bynum. You seem to be reading what you want to read instead of what I write. I said there is a need for positional flexibility off the bench. That person(s) needs to be able to contribute offensively, like Figgins.

 

Macias and Bynum suck, both offensively and defensively. There is little if any value in having them on the bench.

 

Figgins shouldn't be thrown in the same trashcan with those two. He can field all his positions well. He's fast and can nab a bag (pinch run). He can get on base at a reasonable level (better than many of our starters, which is a shame) and take that extra base.

 

I'm not enamoured of Figgins as a regular, unless all we had to do is pay his salary.

 

Yes, there is a numerical necessity for having a flexible bench player. You proved it yourself. You want 2 backup IF and there are 4 IF positions (not including catcher).

[davearm]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

[fromthestretch]

Macias and Bynum suck, both offensively and defensively. There is little if any value in having them on the bench.

 

Figgins shouldn't be thrown in the same trashcan with those two. He can field all his positions well. He's fast and can nab a bag (pinch run). He can get on base at a reasonable level (better than many of our starters, which is a shame) and take that extra base.

 

The bolded part of your statement is not accurate. He is not a good third baseman. He's really not all that great at second either.

[goonys evil twin]

You have 8 positions and how many bench spots? Positional flexibility is a numerical necessity.

 

Where did I say that I advocated guys who couldn't hit on the bench? Where?

 

You said there was a need for guys like Macias and Bynum. And you ridiculed the notion that there was no need for such players.

 

There are 8 specific positions, but no need for a player who can play all 8.

 

2 backup OFers, one who can play CF in a pinch, 2 backup infielders, 1 backup catcher. And a 6th player should be around as a wild card, hopefully somebody who can really hit. You don't need to be 3 deep at 2B. There is no numerical necessity for guys who can play all over the field.

 

I never said there was a need for guys like Macias and Bynum. You seem to be reading what you want to read instead of what I write. I said there is a need for positional flexibility off the bench.

 

You said "eliminate the need for Bynum and Macias" and then scoffed at my claim that there was never a need for those players. I'm not reading into anything.

[goonys evil twin]

Yes, there is a numerical necessity for having a flexible bench player. You proved it yourself. You want 2 backup IF and there are 4 IF positions (not including catcher).

 

1 guy can play MI, 1 guy can play the corner.

 

You don't need guys who play 7 positions.

[CubinNY]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

[goonys evil twin]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

 

I think the better question is how often does that defensive prevent a run from scoring that the other defender wouldn't have prevented, minus how often a run scores anyways (plus runs scored because of errors by that defender) and that no stick defender fails to produce what the original player could have produced.

 

If you replace a good hitter with a bad hitter, but the oppositon takes the lead on a HR, your defensive replacement becomes a liability.

 

You are much better off going with your best players.

[fromthestretch]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

 

You could make the argument that it's ok to sacrifice offense for improved defense if you are going into the ninth inning with a lead, because ideally, you won't be batting again. However, there's not much reason to make that switch prior to the ninth, because your better hitters can still get you an insurance run or two.

[VanceJergins]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

 

You could make the argument that it's ok to sacrifice offense for improved defense if you are going into the ninth inning with a lead, because ideally, you won't be batting again. However, there's not much reason to make that switch prior to the ninth, because your better hitters can still get you an insurance run or two.

 

I think it would usually depend on who the players in question are and how much better one is than the other. Say you have Craig Wilson playing 1B and you have Doug Mientkiewicz on the bench, I would probably put in Mientkiewicz because he's a much better fielder and not a huge drop off offensively in case the opposing team does tie or take the lead in the 9th. But if you have David Ortiz at 1B and Mientkiewicz on the bench, I'd stick with Ortiz cause I'm going to want that bat in the lineup if the opposing team ties or takes the lead.

[davearm]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

[Guest]

I could live with Desmond off the bench but as a starter he's not much of an upgrade anyywhere.

[CubinNY]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that?

 

Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team.

 

I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit.

 

The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage.

[Guest]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

 

I think the better question is how often does that defensive prevent a run from scoring that the other defender wouldn't have prevented, minus how often a run scores anyways (plus runs scored because of errors by that defender) and that no stick defender fails to produce what the original player could have produced.

 

If you replace a good hitter with a bad hitter, but the oppositon takes the lead on a HR, your defensive replacement becomes a liability.

 

You are much better off going with your best players.

 

kind of like the double-switch in the sixth inning.

[CubColtPacer]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that?

 

Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team.

 

I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit.

 

The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage.

 

That's a different argument then. Sure, people on the bench who can hit are more valuable, and players should not be kept on the roster who are seen as only defensive replacements. If they are on a roster though and a team is up late, there is value in a defensive replacement-just not nearly as much usually as an offensive player on the bench. People thought you were arguing originally that a defensive replacemnt in-game is never a good move instead of the value between an offensively minded bench guy and a defensively minded bench guy.

[radarluv1]

i just want 6 guys that can play 2B. its reassuring and keeps you warm at night.

[CubinNY]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that?

 

Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team.

 

I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit.

 

The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage.

 

That's a different argument then. Sure, people on the bench who can hit are more valuable, and players should not be kept on the roster who are seen as only defensive replacements. If they are on a roster though and a team is up late, there is value in a defensive replacement-just not nearly as much usually as an offensive player on the bench. People thought you were arguing originally that a defensive replacemnt in-game is never a good move instead of the value between an offensively minded bench guy and a defensively minded bench guy.

 

That is exactly what I'm saying. Baseball is a game of %. Having a guy on your bench simply becuase he is a good glove is never a good idea. the opportunity costs are just too high over the long haul.

[UBlink]

That is exactly what I'm saying. Baseball is a game of %. Having a guy on your bench simply becuase he is a good glove is never a good idea. the opportunity costs are just too high over the long haul.

 

I just love it when you talk dirty!

[Abe Frohman]

If Neifi Perez can get 2.5-3 million for a back-up role, Chone Figgins is worth 4 million a year off the bench. He can provide a lot of things for this team, and with all the injuries the Cubs have dealt with over the past couple years - you need an insurance policy like him instead of Perez, Macias, Bynum, (insert worthless waste of roster space here).

 

I'd think a guy like Figgins would be an asset. Especially if you don't get the guys you need, particularly in CF.

[goonys evil twin]

If Neifi Perez can get 2.5-3 million for a back-up role, Chone Figgins is worth 4 million a year off the bench.

 

That is horrible logic. Overpaying one guy does not justify overpaying another.

[baseball7897]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

Defense doesn't matter. :D :D

[rjchapma]

no matter what if we can get figgins for basically nothing we should get him. Even if he doest start which would be dumb he is one of the best utility guys in the league. Hes good defensivly, hes unbelievably fast and isnt much worse with OBPs or avg compared to Pierre