Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters called up!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wow, I honestly forgot he existed. You're right though, he'd make more sense than Rolen. He basically announced on Twitter a while back he'd take 1.5 mill to stay with the Cubs.

 

I'd pay $1.5 million to have him play for anyone else.

 

I think it's worth seeing if surgery makes the early season Ian Stewart closer to being the current one (or perhaps, better than that).

 

I think it's worth seeing what might happen if we try to use our starting spots on big market clubs on good players and not random scrapheap hopefuls.

[Sammy Sofa]

They shall use sorcery AND alchemy to construct an available 3B.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They shall use sorcery AND alchemy to construct an available 3B.

 

We spent all this money on the best front office in baseball so that we could absolve them of trying to find good players if it looks like it might be kinda hard.

[Sammy Sofa]

They shall use sorcery AND alchemy to construct an available 3B.

 

We spent all this money on the best front office in baseball so that we could absolve them of trying to find good players if it looks like it might be kinda hard.

 

What a turd of a response. If the FA market sucks and there's not a smart trade available, what do you want them to do for 3B next season?

[Tracer Bullet]

If they're so smart, they should have thought of that before taking over the team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They shall use sorcery AND alchemy to construct an available 3B.

 

We spent all this money on the best front office in baseball so that we could absolve them of trying to find good players if it looks like it might be kinda hard.

 

What a turd of a response. If the FA market sucks and there's not a smart trade available, what do you want them to do for 3B next season?

 

Find someone better than Ian Stewart. And if they can't, resign.

[jumbo]

They shall use sorcery AND alchemy to construct an available 3B.

 

We spent all this money on the best front office in baseball so that we could absolve them of trying to find good players if it looks like it might be kinda hard.

 

What a turd of a response. If the FA market sucks and there's not a smart trade available, what do you want them to do for 3B next season?

 

Find someone better than Ian Stewart. And if they can't, resign.

 

This is a rational way to view the situation. Maybe Vitters should resign from baseball because he's not having success so far.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is a rational way to view the situation. Maybe Vitters should resign from baseball because he's not having success so far.

 

Vitters is getting BABIP-screwed.

[El Duderino]

This is a rational way to view the situation. Maybe Vitters should resign from baseball because he's not having success so far.

 

Vitters is getting BABIP-screwed.

 

lol

[jersey cubs fan]

the whole "can't divide by zero" thing?

[davell]

I feel bad, we've obviously backed Kyle into a corner and he won't leave.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I feel bad, we've obviously backed Kyle into a corner and he won't leave.

 

What corner? The "Ian Stewart sucks at baseball, and any front office worth its salt should be able to do better if given two consecutive offseasons to try to find a third baseman?" If that's a corner, you didn't back me into it. I walked there on my own because it's where the truth is.

 

Vitters is what he is. A fringe MLB hitter who *might* hit enough to stick at a premium position. The 33% K-rate is definitely disappointing at this point and doesn't make things look good for him in the future, but he's not been a .300 OPS quality hitter either. He really does have a .114 BABIP.

[jumbo]

I feel bad, we've obviously backed Kyle into a corner and he won't leave.

 

What corner? The "Ian Stewart sucks at baseball, and any front office worth its salt should be able to do better if given two consecutive offseasons to try to find a third baseman?" If that's a corner, you didn't back me into it. I walked there on my own because it's where the truth is.

 

Vitters is what he is. A fringe MLB hitter who *might* hit enough to stick at a premium position. The 33% K-rate is definitely disappointing at this point and doesn't make things look good for him in the future, but he's not been a .300 OPS quality hitter either. He really does have a .114 BABIP.

 

I brought up Vitters in an attempt to call out the blind rage exhibited in many posts, but was clearly not successful. Let's leave this decent young fella out of this.

 

If you think the front office is terrible for trying out Stewart last season or next season you should remember that he was the same kind of pick up as DeJesus and Maholm, both of which were successful signings. The FO took an approach to the off season and experienced some, but not total success. I fully expect them to employ a nearly identical approach this coming off season.

[davell]

Kyle, I was referring to Brett more than anything, as I just don't see how or why you're so adamantly apposed to him having a chance to be a solid player for us. as for Stewart, I think I'm going to side with Jumbo. Keep him. If he comes back to remote decency, he'd bring something in trade and make that trade look better. Rolen, Youkilis and Reynolds are the FA options. Keeping Stewart, Valbuena and having Vitters in AAA(unless he's dealt) would give us more money to spend elsewhere.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you think the front office is terrible for trying out Stewart last season or next season you should remember that he was the same kind of pick up as DeJesus and Maholm, both of which were successful signings. The FO took an approach to the off season and experienced some, but not total success. I fully expect them to employ a nearly identical approach this coming off season.

 

 

No, he wasn't anything remotely similar to that kind of pickup.

 

David DeJesus was coming off a 2.2 fWAR season in which he was a bit BABIP-blipped, and had a career high of 4.4 fWAR. He had four consecutive seasons of 2.0 fWAR and 6 of his last 7 (1.9 in 2007 was the only time he missed that level). He has been who he always has been.

 

Paul Maholm was coming off a 2.1 fWAR season and had a career high of 3.2 fWAR, and had four consecutive seasons over 2.0. He has been who he has always has been.

 

Ian Stewart was coming off a -0.6 fWAR season in which he was BABIP screwed, awful and hurt. His career high is 1.5 fWAR. He proceeded to be awful and hurt. He has been who he always has been.

 

David DeJesus and Paul Maholm were established MLB starting-quality players who the market undervalued. Ian Stewart is a player who was once thought to have some talent but has been bad almost his career. He's not remotely comparable to the former two.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle, I was referring to Brett more than anything, as I just don't see how or why you're so adamantly apposed to him having a chance to be a solid player for us.

 

And I don't see why people are having so much trouble seeing it.

 

Brett Jackson K'd in 34% of his AAA plate appearances this season. The list of players who have done that and gone on to be successful hitters is very, very scant. He has since K'd in 40% of his MLB appearances, which I think is pretty in line with his AAA performance (MLB pitchers being better at exploiting holes than AAA pitchers and all). The list of players who can strike out at that level and still perform well at the MLB level is even slimmer than the AAA list.

 

People want a high OBP, take-and-rake guy in the offense so badly, they are willing to ignore the fact that this specific take-and-rake player does not appear to have the skill set to hit MLB pitching at an acceptable level in the long term.

[Warpticon]

Kyle, I was referring to Brett more than anything, as I just don't see how or why you're so adamantly apposed to him having a chance to be a solid player for us.

 

And I don't see why people are having so much trouble seeing it.

 

Brett Jackson K'd in 34% of his AAA plate appearances this season. The list of players who have done that and gone on to be successful hitters is very, very scant. He has since K'd in 40% of his MLB appearances, which I think is pretty in line with his AAA performance (MLB pitchers being better at exploiting holes than AAA pitchers and all). The list of players who can strike out at that level and still perform well at the MLB level is even slimmer than the AAA list.

 

People want a high OBP, take-and-rake guy in the offense so badly, they are willing to ignore the fact that this specific take-and-rake player does not appear to have the skill set to hit MLB pitching at an acceptable level in the long term.

 

or, people could just be taking issue with you being so hilariously hyperbolic about it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

or, people could just be taking issue with you being so hilariously hyperbolic about it.

 

 

Yeah. The guy lapped the field in the PCL in strikeouts, then is striking out even more in the majors, but I'm just blowing it out of proportion.

[Warpticon]

or, people could just be taking issue with you being so hilariously hyperbolic about it.

 

 

Yeah. The guy lapped the field in the PCL in strikeouts, then is striking out even more in the majors, but I'm just blowing it out of proportion.

 

Yep, because that's exactly what I was talking about. Nobody--not one single person--has suggested that his strikeout spike isn't a concern. As I said before, and you apparently chose to ignore, there is an enormous difference between being concerned about his strikeout rate and projecting a MLB-record-setting sustained 40+% rate that has no precedent.

 

"Lapped the field" doesn't help your case for not being hyperbolic, by the way.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

or, people could just be taking issue with you being so hilariously hyperbolic about it.

 

 

Yeah. The guy lapped the field in the PCL in strikeouts, then is striking out even more in the majors, but I'm just blowing it out of proportion.

 

Yep, because that's exactly what I was talking about. Nobody--not one single person--has suggested that his strikeout spike isn't a concern. As I said before, and you apparently chose to ignore, there is an enormous difference between being concerned about his strikeout rate and projecting a MLB-record-setting sustained 40+% rate that has no precedent.

 

"Lapped the field" doesn't help your case for not being hyperbolic, by the way.

 

 

He's not actually going to get the record because if/when he strikes out at that rate, he'll eventually find himself out of the lineup, just like all the other people in the world who can't hit advanced pitching.

 

He struck out 158 times in 107 PCL games before his promotion. The next closest player, according to B-R, has struck out 127 times in 134 games.

 

Yeah, he lapped the field.

 

You are saying it's crazy to project 240 Ks in 600 MLB plate appearances.

 

He's got 197 in 562 PAs this season, a pace for 210/600. Seeing as how MLB pitching is just a little bit better than PCL pitching, I don't think the extra 30 are that crazy.

[XZero771679666304]

or, people could just be taking issue with you being so hilariously hyperbolic about it.

 

 

Yeah. The guy lapped the field in the PCL in strikeouts, then is striking out even more in the majors, but I'm just blowing it out of proportion.

 

Yep, because that's exactly what I was talking about. Nobody--not one single person--has suggested that his strikeout spike isn't a concern. As I said before, and you apparently chose to ignore, there is an enormous difference between being concerned about his strikeout rate and projecting a MLB-record-setting sustained 40+% rate that has no precedent.

 

"Lapped the field" doesn't help your case for not being hyperbolic, by the way.

 

 

He's not actually going to get the record because if/when he strikes out at that rate, he'll eventually find himself out of the lineup, just like all the other people in the world who can't hit advanced pitching.

 

He struck out 158 times in 107 PCL games before his promotion. The next closest player has struck out 127 times in 134 games.

 

Yeah, he lapped the field.

 

Actually the next closest player has struck out 145 times in 121 games. To truly have "lapped the field", Brett would had to have struck out 250+ times. So yeah, hyperbole.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Fine. "Lapped the field" withdrawn. "Had a huge lead in the PCL" would have been more appropriate.

[jumbo]

If you think the front office is terrible for trying out Stewart last season or next season you should remember that he was the same kind of pick up as DeJesus and Maholm, both of which were successful signings. The FO took an approach to the off season and experienced some, but not total success. I fully expect them to employ a nearly identical approach this coming off season.

 

 

No, he wasn't anything remotely similar to that kind of pickup.

 

David DeJesus was coming off a 2.2 fWAR season in which he was a bit BABIP-blipped, and had a career high of 4.4 fWAR. He had four consecutive seasons of 2.0 fWAR and 6 of his last 7 (1.9 in 2007 was the only time he missed that level). He has been who he always has been.

 

Paul Maholm was coming off a 2.1 fWAR season and had a career high of 3.2 fWAR, and had four consecutive seasons over 2.0. He has been who he has always has been.

 

Ian Stewart was coming off a -0.6 fWAR season in which he was BABIP screwed, awful and hurt. His career high is 1.5 fWAR. He proceeded to be awful and hurt. He has been who he always has been.

 

David DeJesus and Paul Maholm were established MLB starting-quality players who the market undervalued. Ian Stewart is a player who was once thought to have some talent but has been bad almost his career. He's not remotely comparable to the former two.

 

DeJesus and Stewart were both coming off career lows in WAR. Maholm had his value diminish due to a shoulder injury. All were buy-low acquisitions.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

DeJesus and Stewart were both coming off career lows in WAR. Maholm had his value diminish due to a shoulder injury. All were buy-low acquisitions.

 

That's a disingenuous comparison. DeJesus and Maholm's "low" were still solid players, and their highs were above-average starters.

 

Ian Stewart's low was a sub-replacement player and his high was a barely average starter in part-time duty.

 

You could pick up some terrible career organizational minor leaguer coming off his worst season, give him a starting job and say "see! It's buy-low, just like DeJesus and Maholm!" But it's not just like them.

[jumbo]

DeJesus and Stewart were both coming off career lows in WAR. Maholm had his value diminish due to a shoulder injury. All were buy-low acquisitions.

 

That's a disingenuous comparison. DeJesus and Maholm's "low" were still solid players, and their highs were above-average starters.

 

Ian Stewart's low was a sub-replacement player and his high was a barely average starter in part-time duty.

 

You could pick up some terrible career organizational minor leaguer coming off his worst season, give him a starting job and say "see! It's buy-low, just like DeJesus and Maholm!" But it's not just like them.

 

I see your point, but Stewart was a top pick with pedigree that had struggled with injuries. In his 2009 and 2010 seasons he had a 780 OPS with a lot of walks. In 2010 he had 25 HR, showing some legit power. That's not sub replacement level or career minor leaguer.

The last two years have been a waste, but I don't think we can say it's due to ability until he comes back from injury.