Oh, so this is why Murton is successful........

[Tim]

Diffusion,

 

Thanks for doing all that research and sharing it with us. I thought it was a very entertaining read.

 

I'd like to point out, though, that not all productive rookies come from BA's top 100 list. Look at the Cards the last few years when they've had problems at the major league level. For a good portion of this year, they were without both of the starting corner OF's. They tried Mabry to fill a gap at first, but the secret mojo potion of last year that got him to perform well above his career averages ran out and he was back to his normal, under-productive self. So what do they do?

 

They turn to minor-leager John Rodriguez and stick him out there to sink or swim. Fortunately for the Cards, he swam. If he had not, I imagine they would have simply shuffled the deck chairs and tried someone else. This is what teams do when they are willing to give minor league players a chance to succeed.

 

The case of Franceur in Atlanta is very well documented, but I love to see what Cox did with Kelly Johnson. He was called up and stuck out there and given the full backing of Bobby. When he was 1-32 to start his career, Bobby still stood by him and lauded him with praise when it would have been easy to sit him down and say that, "his throws aren't quite straight."

[CubfaninCA]

His tactical skills suk. Even a common person can figure out that you bat the guy w/ the .350 obp @ the top of the order instead of the guy w/ the .300 obp. Baker's bizarro lineup's have probably cost this team @ least 50 runs this year.

 

What is the over/under of the #2 hitter bunting the runner on 1B to 2B and then the oppsition walking Lee?

 

You don't want Burnitz up there w/ 2 men on?? I mean his .213 RISP average is stellar. :( A good cleanup man could have made a huge difference this year. The signing of Burnitz may be Hendry's worse move in the past 3 years.

[JC]

His tactical skills suk. Even a common person can figure out that you bat the guy w/ the .350 obp @ the top of the order instead of the guy w/ the .300 obp. Baker's bizarro lineup's have probably cost this team @ least 50 runs this year.

 

What is the over/under of the #2 hitter bunting the runner on 1B to 2B and then the oppsition walking Lee?

 

You don't want Burnitz up there w/ 2 men on?? I mean his .213 RISP average is stellar. :( A good cleanup man could have made a huge difference this year. The signing of Burnitz may be Hendry's worse move in the past 3 years.

 

I'm not a Hendry fan, but I wouldn't go that far. However, if Jim picks up his $7M option, I reserve the right to revisit my answer.

[CubfaninCA]

What is "NSBB CW"?

 

You know what CW is don't you?? If not, this may effect your #2 status on the board. :o

 

Conventional Wisdom.

 

If you want to play the martyr and hold yourself out to be the one shining objective person on the board in the face of group think fanatics, go ahead. I think its laughable that you identify a couple of posts as "conventional wisdom" of the board. Such flip comments very much discount the varied opinions and posts that people contribute. Perhaps someone didn't see or chose not to post in whatever thread or group of threads you are referencing regarding Aurilia and Feliz. Or, rather, perhaps they saw it and chose not to contribute because they simply weren't interested.

 

Either way, commentary promoting oneself as a fighter against group think, conventional wisdom, or whatever the phrase may be is ridiculous.

 

Objectively speaking, that is.

 

Either you're taking this a little to serious or maybe you're a little upset when a few people rock the boat and challenge the idea that Baker can't develop players..... This subject has been discussed here since 2003 btw, so yes I feel like I can describe it as "CW" because the dominant opinion on this board is that Baker can't develop players.

 

I'm just trying to bring more democracy. :o

[CubfaninCA]

Diffusion,

 

Thanks for doing all that research and sharing it with us. I thought it was a very entertaining read.

 

I'd like to point out, though, that not all productive rookies come from BA's top 100 list. Look at the Cards the last few years when they've had problems at the major league level. For a good portion of this year, they were without both of the starting corner OF's. They tried Mabry to fill a gap at first, but the secret mojo potion of last year that got him to perform well above his career averages ran out and he was back to his normal, under-productive self. So what do they do?

 

They turn to minor-leager John Rodriguez and stick him out there to sink or swim. Fortunately for the Cards, he swam. If he had not, I imagine they would have simply shuffled the deck chairs and tried someone else. This is what teams do when they are willing to give minor league players a chance to succeed.

 

The case of Franceur in Atlanta is very well documented, but I love to see what Cox did with Kelly Johnson. He was called up and stuck out there and given the full backing of Bobby. When he was 1-32 to start his career, Bobby still stood by him and lauded him with praise when it would have been easy to sit him down and say that, "his throws aren't quite straight."

 

Little tidbit on Francoeur. He was on Rome today and said Cox has never said anything about him taking walks. He just lets him play, and he really likes that. Kinda sounds like a Dusty approach. :D

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

That's just an assumption though.

 

There was no need to put Murton in the deep end of the pool from day one, and the Lawton trade was a good trade. Unfortunatley Lawton choked in Chicago. I don't see why putting a young guy in situations where they're at more of an advantage is scoffed at. Put Murton in there against righties everyday from day one and he could have started out 2-30. Yes, he could rebound like other's have, but also it could have stunted his growth. Basically, all I'm saying is this stuff about Baker not developing players is blown way out of proportion.

 

So what if Murton wen 2-30 against righthanders? Did Hollandsworth or the newly acquired Lawton do any better? And based on Murton is doing now and what he did in the minor leagues prior to being called up and during his second trip down this year, it's highly unlikely that he would have wen 2-30.

 

Have you read what Cox has said about Kelly Johnson going 0-22 in his first chance? It's in a thread somewhere here. Cox knew Johnson could play, had always been a starter, and left him in to take his lumps. Johnson went on a tear shortly afterwards.

 

If Murton had been called up to sit because an obviously better player was in front of him, that would have been one thing. Instead, he hit from the moment he got here and still had to sit while Todd Hollandsworth got playing time. Surely you can see the ridiculous nature in that! Furthermore, he didn't get to play against all lefties. Remember prior to the ASG, Holly got a start against a lefty because 5-7 days is too long to sit without losing your stroke. Baker's words, not mine. If that is true for a craptacular veteran like Hollandsworth, then why isn't it true for the rookies?

 

Baker trying to take credit for Murton's success is ridiculous. In fact, what Murton's success shows is how much Baker has been a detriment to this team. Murton should have been the starter on July 8th and on ward and not had to wait until September.

[brinoch]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks that Neifi was a better option than Ronny Cedeno. 'Cause that would be a fun debate.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks that Neifi was a better option than Ronny Cedeno. 'Cause that would be a fun debate.

 

 

I don't think Neifi was a better option, but in the case of Cedeno we really didn't get to see him play enough to make the analysis that we can with Murton and the stiffs that played in his stead.

[CubfaninCA]

 

That's just an assumption though.

 

There was no need to put Murton in the deep end of the pool from day one, and the Lawton trade was a good trade. Unfortunatley Lawton choked in Chicago. I don't see why putting a young guy in situations where they're at more of an advantage is scoffed at. Put Murton in there against righties everyday from day one and he could have started out 2-30. Yes, he could rebound like other's have, but also it could have stunted his growth. Basically, all I'm saying is this stuff about Baker not developing players is blown way out of proportion.

 

So what if Murton wen 2-30 against righthanders? Did Hollandsworth or the newly acquired Lawton do any better? And based on Murton is doing now and what he did in the minor leagues prior to being called up and during his second trip down this year, it's highly unlikely that he would have wen 2-30.

 

Have you read what Cox has said about Kelly Johnson going 0-22 in his first chance? It's in a thread somewhere here. Cox knew Johnson could play, had always been a starter, and left him in to take his lumps. Johnson went on a tear shortly afterwards.

 

If Murton had been called up to sit because an obviously better player was in front of him, that would have been one thing. Instead, he hit from the moment he got here and still had to sit while Todd Hollandsworth got playing time. Surely you can see the ridiculous nature in that! Furthermore, he didn't get to play against all lefties. Remember prior to the ASG, Holly got a start against a lefty because 5-7 days is too long to sit without losing your stroke. Baker's words, not mine. If that is true for a craptacular veteran like Hollandsworth, then why isn't it true for the rookies?

 

Baker trying to take credit for Murton's success is ridiculous. In fact, what Murton's success shows is how much Baker has been a detriment to this team. Murton should have been the starter on July 8th and on ward and not had to wait until September.

 

I take it you didn't like the Lawton trade... Given what Lawton had done all season prior to joining Chicago, it looked like one heck of a move given what the Cubs needed (a leadoff man). Of course, it didn't work out though. If hindsight's perfect, obviously the deal isn't made.

 

I wish they would have sat Burnitz and played Murton. Heck bat Walker 4th. Burnitz has killed this team given what he's supposed to do (cleanup).

[CubfaninCA]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks that Neifi was a better option than Ronny Cedeno. 'Cause that would be a fun debate.

 

Coin toss. It's not like Cedeno's a 5 tool prospect, and Neifi hasn't been horrible this year. He's been a middle of the pack SS.

[UK1679666180]

There was no need to put Murton in the deep end of the pool from day one

 

What about after the Lawton trade to the Yanks?

 

There was a window there that showed Murton hitting well in a small sample and Hollandsworth continuing to not hit before being traded?

 

That's not throwing Murton to the wolves, that's doing what is best for the ballclub. You know what you had in Hollandsworth and yet he still started a large % of games after the Lawton trade, until he was traded.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I take it you didn't like the Lawton trade... Given what Lawton had done all season prior to joining Chicago, it looked like one heck of a move given what the Cubs needed (a leadoff man). Of course, it didn't work out though. If hindsight's perfect, obviously the deal isn't made.

 

I wish they would have sat Burnitz and played Murton. Heck bat Walker 4th. Burnitz has killed this team given what he's supposed to do (cleanup).

 

Actually, I did like the Lawton trade and even said so at the time. We didn't give up much to get him. My point was, and still is, that if Murton had been given playing time, we may have chosen to make another deal. Lawton was an upgrade over Hollandsworth. If Hollandsworth is the starter, then we have a problem. The Lawton trade helped answer that.

 

On the other hand, if Murton had hit in a regular role as he has done since being given that role, we likely would not have made the trade for Lawton. We could have done something else. Who knows?

 

My problem isn't that Lawton was traded for and hence Murton sent down. It's more that Murton should have been given his opportunity in July to show waht he could do, but instead we were treated to the craptacular play of Hollandsworth.

[goonys evil twin]

That's not throwing Murton to the wolves, that's doing what is best for the ballclub. You know what you had in Hollandsworth and yet he still started a large % of games after the Lawton trade, until he was traded.

 

We owed it to Hollandsworth for what he did in April, 2004.

[CubfaninCA]

There was no need to put Murton in the deep end of the pool from day one

 

What about after the Lawton trade to the Yanks?

 

There was a window there that showed Murton hitting well in a small sample and Hollandsworth continuing to not hit before being traded?

 

That's not throwing Murton to the wolves, that's doing what is best for the ballclub. You know what you had in Hollandsworth and yet he still started a large % of games after the Lawton trade, until he was traded.

 

Maybe they were showcasing Holla?? :wink: Hey I wanted Murton in there earlier too. I wanted Murton, Patterson and Lawton. This should be in the archives. :o Of course, Hendry & Baker weren't going to give up on their big FA signing, Burny. I see no reason to nitpick though since the young guys, Murton and Patterson, are playing over Hairston, who's been somewhat productive.

 

I'd rather have Neifi back than Burnitz next year. Both are used improperly and Neifi costs A LOT less. Burnitz is a 7 hitter, if that.

[brinoch]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks that Neifi was a better option than Ronny Cedeno. 'Cause that would be a fun debate.

 

Coin toss. It's not like Cedeno's a 5 tool prospect, and Neifi hasn't been horrible this year. He's been a middle of the pack SS.

 

Neifi has been horrible. And, personally, I think it's quite a little bit more than a coin toss. Neifi was extremely bad for us. His OBP, on an OBP-challenged team, was a .301. .301!! And, get this, he now has a career .301 OBP. We knew about what Neifi was going to give us -- a .301 OBP and about a .380 SLG (his career norms, including time in Colorado)!

 

Cedeno could hardly have done worse than that. And, given his numbers in AAA, he was likely would have done a lot better than that. In 80 AB, he gave us a .356 OBP and a .375 SLG. That's a substantial upgrade, and you get the chance to evaluate him for 2006. This is what the Cubs should have done.

 

Moreover, you probably could have traded Neifi to the Nationals, who were desperate for any kind of "upgrade" to Christian Guzman, and gotten something for one of the five worst players in MLB.

[CubfaninCA]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks that Neifi was a better option than Ronny Cedeno. 'Cause that would be a fun debate.

 

Coin toss. It's not like Cedeno's a 5 tool prospect, and Neifi hasn't been horrible this year. He's been a middle of the pack SS.

 

Neifi has been horrible. And, personally, I think it's quite a little bit more than a coin toss. Neifi was extremely bad for us. His OBP, on an OBP-challenged team, was a .301. .301!! And, get this, he now has a career .301 OBP. We knew about what Neifi was going to give us -- a .301 OBP and about a .380 SLG (his career norms, including time in Colorado)!

 

Cedeno could hardly have done worse than that. And, given his numbers in AAA, he was likely would have done a lot better than that. In 80 AB, he gave us a .356 OBP and a .375 SLG. That's a substantial upgrade, and you get the chance to evaluate him for 2006. This is what the Cubs should have done.

 

Moreover, you probably could have traded Neifi to the Nationals, who were desperate for any kind of "upgrade" to Christian Guzman, and gotten something for one of the five worst players in MLB.

 

Neifi should be batting 8th where obp isn't as important. His ops is middle of the pack amongst shortstop's and don't forget his glove.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks that Neifi was a better option than Ronny Cedeno. 'Cause that would be a fun debate.

 

Coin toss. It's not like Cedeno's a 5 tool prospect, and Neifi hasn't been horrible this year. He's been a middle of the pack SS.

 

Neifi has been horrible. And, personally, I think it's quite a little bit more than a coin toss. Neifi was extremely bad for us. His OBP, on an OBP-challenged team, was a .301. .301!! And, get this, he now has a career .301 OBP. We knew about what Neifi was going to give us -- a .301 OBP and about a .380 SLG (his career norms, including time in Colorado)!

 

Cedeno could hardly have done worse than that. And, given his numbers in AAA, he was likely would have done a lot better than that. In 80 AB, he gave us a .356 OBP and a .375 SLG. That's a substantial upgrade, and you get the chance to evaluate him for 2006. This is what the Cubs should have done.

 

Moreover, you probably could have traded Neifi to the Nationals, who were desperate for any kind of "upgrade" to Christian Guzman, and gotten something for one of the five worst players in MLB.

 

You can't trade Neifi, he's been fantastic! And he helped us get where we are.

[goonys evil twin]

 

Neifi should be batting 8th where obp isn't as important. His ops is middle of the pack amongst shortstop's and don't forget his glove.

 

Neifi shouold be on the bench, if anywhere.

[CubfaninCA]

 

Neifi should be batting 8th where obp isn't as important. His ops is middle of the pack amongst shortstop's and don't forget his glove.

 

Neifi shouold be on the bench, if anywhere.

 

That would be ideal. What's more ideal is Nomar, ARam and Walker not missing any games. :(

[Diffusion]

Diffusion,

 

Thanks for doing all that research and sharing it with us. I thought it was a very entertaining read.

 

I'd like to point out, though, that not all productive rookies come from BA's top 100 list.

 

Absolutely. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most players don't come from BA's top 100 list.

 

Maybe I'll do something more comprehensive another time.

 

But this has helped me get a bit of a better feel for Dusty's handling of prospects. He gave JR Phillips and Calvin Murray shots, and Royce Clayton was retained as a starter, for instance. If anyone knows the story with Steve Hosey, please do tell. That seems like a weird one.

[frostwyrm]

Remember prior to the ASG, Holly got a start against a lefty because 5-7 days is too long to sit without losing your stroke. Baker's words, not mine. If that is true for a craptacular veteran like Hollandsworth, then why isn't it true for the rookies?

 

Baker also said he started Dubois against Tim Wakefield because he thought Wakefield's knuckleball might mess up Hollandsworth's stroke. How does that jibe with Baker's stated approach of putting rookies in situations to succeed and gain confidence?

[CubinNY]

Remember prior to the ASG, Holly got a start against a lefty because 5-7 days is too long to sit without losing your stroke. Baker's words, not mine. If that is true for a craptacular veteran like Hollandsworth, then why isn't it true for the rookies?

 

Baker also said he started Dubois against Tim Wakefield because he thought Wakefield's knuckleball might mess up Hollandsworth's stroke. How does that jibe with Baker's stated approach of putting rookies in situations to succeed and gain confidence?

 

I hate to re-hash this debacle of a season but all one has to do is look at Hendry's comments from the convention and compare them to Dusty's comments in ST related to Dubios and Mr. Craptacular. They don't jive whatsoever.

 

I can just see it. Five years from now someone on Dodger Blues will look up all the rookies that never got a chance under Dusty and mention how terrible Dubios turned out to be. The person will never mention he was competing for playing time against the likes of Todd hollandsworth and Jose Macis.

 

Once again, I'll try an analogy.

 

Pat Robertson and I are being chased by a lion.

I don't have to be faster than the lion to not get eaten

I only have to be faster than Rev. Robertson.

 

The rookie doesn't have to be great he only has to be better than the veteran who he is competing for playing time.

[JC]

If you're lucky, it will be a Roman lion which will go for the most Christian person regardless of speed. Obviously, Robertson is more Christian than you. (Just ask him). You'd be in the clear.

[CubfaninCA]

Remember prior to the ASG, Holly got a start against a lefty because 5-7 days is too long to sit without losing your stroke. Baker's words, not mine. If that is true for a craptacular veteran like Hollandsworth, then why isn't it true for the rookies?

 

Baker also said he started Dubois against Tim Wakefield because he thought Wakefield's knuckleball might mess up Hollandsworth's stroke. How does that jibe with Baker's stated approach of putting rookies in situations to succeed and gain confidence?

 

I hate to re-hash this debacle of a season but all one has to do is look at Hendry's comments from the convention and compare them to Dusty's comments in ST related to Dubios and Mr. Craptacular. They don't jive whatsoever.

 

I can just see it. Five years from now someone on Dodger Blues will look up all the rookies that never got a chance under Dusty and mention how terrible Dubios turned out to be. The person will never mention he was competing for playing time against the likes of Todd hollandsworth and Jose Macis.

 

Once again, I'll try an analogy.

 

Pat Robertson and I are being chased by a lion.

I don't have to be faster than the lion to not get eaten

I only have to be faster than Rev. Robertson.

 

The rookie doesn't have to be great he only has to be better than the veteran who he is competing for playing time.

 

Holla was good when he was healthy last year. He got the benefit of the doubt for too long this year, but DuBois wasn't any better considering he can't field a lick.

[CubinNY]

Remember prior to the ASG, Holly got a start against a lefty because 5-7 days is too long to sit without losing your stroke. Baker's words, not mine. If that is true for a craptacular veteran like Hollandsworth, then why isn't it true for the rookies?

 

Baker also said he started Dubois against Tim Wakefield because he thought Wakefield's knuckleball might mess up Hollandsworth's stroke. How does that jibe with Baker's stated approach of putting rookies in situations to succeed and gain confidence?

 

I hate to re-hash this debacle of a season but all one has to do is look at Hendry's comments from the convention and compare them to Dusty's comments in ST related to Dubios and Mr. Craptacular. They don't jive whatsoever.

 

I can just see it. Five years from now someone on Dodger Blues will look up all the rookies that never got a chance under Dusty and mention how terrible Dubios turned out to be. The person will never mention he was competing for playing time against the likes of Todd hollandsworth and Jose Macis.

 

Once again, I'll try an analogy.

 

Pat Robertson and I are being chased by a lion.

I don't have to be faster than the lion to not get eaten

I only have to be faster than Rev. Robertson.

 

The rookie doesn't have to be great he only has to be better than the veteran who he is competing for playing time.

 

Holla was good when he was healthy last year. He got the benefit of the doubt for too long this year, but DuBois wasn't any better considering he can't field a lick.

 

Whatever makes you happy.

 

Hollandsworth was a real cracker jack out there