Same position players next year?

[Rob]

If the Cubs still like Fontenot better than Baker, it's because he's still the better bet for 2010.

[cubsfan26]

If the Cubs still like Fontenot better than Baker, it's because he's still the better bet for 2010.

 

Why is that? I'm just curious because from looking at some numbers it wouldn't seem that way. Like Baker is a year younger, he is a career 307/377/883 hitter in the minors and his numbers off the bench the last two years have been pretty consistent(only 333 and 248 AB's though) . While Fontenot is a career 291/336/803 hitter in the minors and struggled when getting regular playing time last year. It seems like the basis of Fontenot success is based on his 08 season(only 284 AB's), which could have been a fluke. Especially since he really only well that season from late June through September.

[Bull]

Looking for a good place for this and this seemed as good as any. While I understand the value of cheap young talent, and developing talent for the future, letting young guys get ML experience, as well as the danger of Sammy Sosa like precipitous declines in over 30 players, nursing home style rosters like the 2005 Giants, and overpaying for old talent that could be had cheaper elsewhere, (breath) I wanted to see what everyone's take was on this:

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rosters/_/sort/average_age/order/true

 

Seems to show that the more successful teams were older than league average. While this is primarily dictated by the ability to "buy" older better players (Yankees, red sox), I was surprised to see Tampa Bay at 6. I also understand that smaller market teams are forced to have more players with less than 6 years experience who cheaper (and not yet as good) and tend to lose those player as they reach their potential.

 

So in summary, why the opposition to "aging" players if they can provide production and have proven a level of production. I especially like the low cost/ potential rebound options.

[jersey cubs fan]

So in summary, why the opposition to "aging" players if they can provide production and have proven a level of production. I especially like the low cost/ potential rebound options.

 

Well it depends on how you go about fielding that old team. The Cubs were older than most and not good. If you have 32 year old stars, you have known quantities and will be good. If you have 31 year old mediocre players, you will be younger but worse. And generally, the youngest teams will be teams in transition, who had to get rid of their established players and go with a bunch of youth, much of which maybe should still be in the minors. Youth, in and of itself, is not a quality. But at the same time, neither is age. A 36 year old journeyman is a 36 year old journeyman and a 23 overmatched player is still overmatched. If you are older, but good, that's great, if you are older, and not good, that's really bad. And that's the Cubs. If you are younger and good, that is ideal, but if you are a younger and bad, at least there is room for improvement.

[questionmarkgrace]

Actually, Theriot will probably start at 2B

 

Do you think Castros really ready? The last thing we want is to rush the guy.

 

It will be interesting to see if Jaramillo can work miracles with Castro. All of the stories have said that Hendry is kind of prepping Theriot for a move to 2B, but I really think Castro needs a little more time in the minors. It wouldn't surprise me if he's called up part way into the season. You're right about not wanting to rush him. There would be a lot of pressure on a 20 year old playing SS on a contending team.

 

It's been Hendry's M.O. to rush top prospects (see: Patterson, Pie, etc.) so it wouldn't surprise me if he broke camp with the big team

 

 

hendry wasn't Gm when patterson came up, MacPhail was.

[Sammy Sofa]

Plus, as it was already pointed out, Pie wasn't rushed.

[Derwood]

Plus, as it was already pointed out, Pie wasn't rushed.

 

He had time at all levels of the minors, true, but he clearly wasn't ready (hindsight being what it is).

[Sammy Sofa]

How can we even say that for sure since he didn't get a chance for sustained playing time in the majors with the Cubs?

[Derwood]

How can we even say that for sure since he didn't get a chance for sustained playing time in the majors with the Cubs?

 

that's the other half of the problem: bringing up guys when they might not be ready, coupled with benching them for washed up veterans when they don't succeed immediately.

 

I hate this front office so much

[Bull]

So in summary, why the opposition to "aging" players if they can provide production and have proven a level of production. I especially like the low cost/ potential rebound options.

 

Well it depends on how you go about fielding that old team. The Cubs were older than most and not good. If you have 32 year old stars, you have known quantities and will be good. If you have 31 year old mediocre players, you will be younger but worse. And generally, the youngest teams will be teams in transition, who had to get rid of their established players and go with a bunch of youth, much of which maybe should still be in the minors. Youth, in and of itself, is not a quality. But at the same time, neither is age. A 36 year old journeyman is a 36 year old journeyman and a 23 overmatched player is still overmatched. If you are older, but good, that's great, if you are older, and not good, that's really bad. And that's the Cubs. If you are younger and good, that is ideal, but if you are a younger and bad, at least there is room for improvement.

 

I agree, but age alone is not a negative. Some here act like that's the most important metric.

[Guest]

So in summary, why the opposition to "aging" players if they can provide production and have proven a level of production. I especially like the low cost/ potential rebound options.

 

Well it depends on how you go about fielding that old team. The Cubs were older than most and not good. If you have 32 year old stars, you have known quantities and will be good. If you have 31 year old mediocre players, you will be younger but worse. And generally, the youngest teams will be teams in transition, who had to get rid of their established players and go with a bunch of youth, much of which maybe should still be in the minors. Youth, in and of itself, is not a quality. But at the same time, neither is age. A 36 year old journeyman is a 36 year old journeyman and a 23 overmatched player is still overmatched. If you are older, but good, that's great, if you are older, and not good, that's really bad. And that's the Cubs. If you are younger and good, that is ideal, but if you are a younger and bad, at least there is room for improvement.

 

I agree, but age alone is not a negative. Some here act like that's the most important metric.

Age is the most important metric when you're giving multi-year contracts to guys on the wrong side of 30.

[Rob]

So in summary, why the opposition to "aging" players if they can provide production and have proven a level of production. I especially like the low cost/ potential rebound options.

 

Well it depends on how you go about fielding that old team. The Cubs were older than most and not good. If you have 32 year old stars, you have known quantities and will be good. If you have 31 year old mediocre players, you will be younger but worse. And generally, the youngest teams will be teams in transition, who had to get rid of their established players and go with a bunch of youth, much of which maybe should still be in the minors. Youth, in and of itself, is not a quality. But at the same time, neither is age. A 36 year old journeyman is a 36 year old journeyman and a 23 overmatched player is still overmatched. If you are older, but good, that's great, if you are older, and not good, that's really bad. And that's the Cubs. If you are younger and good, that is ideal, but if you are a younger and bad, at least there is room for improvement.

 

I agree, but age alone is not a negative. Some here act like that's the most important metric.

Age is the most important metric when you're giving multi-year contracts to guys on the wrong side of 30.

 

Stop making things up.

[17 Seconds]

So in summary, why the opposition to "aging" players if they can provide production and have proven a level of production. I especially like the low cost/ potential rebound options.

 

Well it depends on how you go about fielding that old team. The Cubs were older than most and not good. If you have 32 year old stars, you have known quantities and will be good. If you have 31 year old mediocre players, you will be younger but worse. And generally, the youngest teams will be teams in transition, who had to get rid of their established players and go with a bunch of youth, much of which maybe should still be in the minors. Youth, in and of itself, is not a quality. But at the same time, neither is age. A 36 year old journeyman is a 36 year old journeyman and a 23 overmatched player is still overmatched. If you are older, but good, that's great, if you are older, and not good, that's really bad. And that's the Cubs. If you are younger and good, that is ideal, but if you are a younger and bad, at least there is room for improvement.

 

I agree, but age alone is not a negative. Some here act like that's the most important metric.

Age is the most important metric when you're giving multi-year contracts to guys on the wrong side of 30.

 

lolll