A strong endorsement of Pierre by . .

[E.J.]

We had one of the worst outfield's in baseball last season. You can quote Dusty Baker himself on that one. It isn't going to be difficult to find "upgrades" in the OF. I don't think the right way to approach fixing this problem is to compare available options to what we had last season, rather to compare the options to each other.

 

The fact that Jacque Jones and Pierre would be "upgrades" is more of a testament to our woefull 2005 OF than an endorsement of their value as baseball players.

 

I still think Hendry should look into trading for Vazquez and Tracy from the Diamondbacks. We'll take Vazquez and his big contract off their hands if they give us Tracy as well. They have a surplus in the outfield as it is.

[BigbadB]

We had one of the worst outfield's in baseball last season. You can quote Dusty Baker himself on that one. It isn't going to be difficult to find "upgrades" in the OF. I don't think the right way to approach fixing this problem is to compare available options to what we had last season, rather to compare the options to each other.

 

The fact that Jacque Jones and Pierre would be "upgrades" is more of a testament to our woefull 2005 OF than an endorsement of their value as baseball players.

 

I still think Hendry should look into trading for Vazquez and Tracy from the Diamondbacks. We'll take Vazquez and his big contract off their hands if they give us Tracy as well. They have a surplus in the outfield as it is.

 

I like that a whole lot more than Soriano and Mench. Not sure if Vazquez would accept the trade to Chicago, but it's more than half way to where he'd prefer to be.

[XZero771679666304]

Terence Moore of the AJC and Jack McKeon.

 

Evidently Pierre's "weak arm" doesn't bother two people who've seen him play a lot of ball. I say get him - especially if the Furcal deal falls thru.

 

Pursuing Pierre would behoove Braves|

 

By Terence Moore Wednesday November 30, 2005

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

 

Juan Pierre. He’s exceptional. He’s available. He’s exactly what the Braves need to push their consecutive streak of division titles to 15. Not only that, he’s capable of doing enough with his bat, glove, legs and heart to end their annoying habit of vanishing each October.

 

(Edited by moderator for copyrighted content--posting of entire article is prohibited)

 

Sorry, it was a blog not really an article.

 

 

Yes, Pierre slumped to .276 last season, but that still was just eight points lower than Furcal’s batting average during what was considered a superlative year for the Braves’ catalyst. And Pierre’s lifetime mark is .305 as the leadoff guy. He steals bases, and he rarely is caught (267 out of 363 attempts). He makes contact more often than not (never more than 52 strikeouts in a season).

 

Since Pierre’s first full year in the majors with the Colorado Rockies in 2001, he hasn’t played less than 152 games in a season. He has spent each of his three seasons with the Marlins playing every game, including every inning during the 2004 season.

 

“In all of the decades I’ve been in the game, I’ve only had two workaholics — Tony Gwynn and Juan Pierre,” said McKeon, still employed by the Marlins.

 

It.'s hard to call Furcal's 2005 "superlative" considering his very poor (.254/.310) first half, in which he was fighting an injury. In the second half, Furcal put up a .322/.394/.474 line. Saying Pierre is rarely caught is just flat out wrong, and Furcal's success rate is considerably higher. And AVG isn't the issue, OBP is.

 

Whoever wrote that was really fluffing Pierre.

[ThePenguin11]

Now that I've taken a long look at our options (Pierre, Bradley and Patterson), I've thought about all the factors in aqcuiring (or keeping) all of these players - and come to this conclusion:

 

Trading (and possibly overpaying) for Pierre as a one-year stopgap and trading for Bradley (a misfit and supposed clubhouse-cancer) are almost not worth the effort. I thought I'd never say it but - Why not roll the dice on Patterson for one more year? His best numbers are better than Bradley's (although Bradley does K less, and play better D) and his teammates like him. If Hendry can focus his efforts on RF and SS, he can bury CP in the 8-hole and consider any positive production gravy. If he was to get Furcal and trade for an impact bat in RF, I think the Cubs would be just fine. Is anyone else thinking this way?

[Magnetic Curses]

Terence Moore of the AJC and Jack McKeon.

 

Evidently Pierre's "weak arm" doesn't bother two people who've seen him play a lot of ball. I say get him - especially if the Furcal deal falls thru.

 

Pursuing Pierre would behoove Braves|

 

By Terence Moore Wednesday November 30, 2005

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

 

Juan Pierre. He’s exceptional. He’s available. He’s exactly what the Braves need to push their consecutive streak of division titles to 15. Not only that, he’s capable of doing enough with his bat, glove, legs and heart to end their annoying habit of vanishing each October.

 

(Edited by moderator for copyrighted content--posting of entire article is prohibited)

 

Sorry, it was a blog not really an article.

 

 

Yes, Pierre slumped to .276 last season, but that still was just eight points lower than Furcal’s batting average during what was considered a superlative year for the Braves’ catalyst. And Pierre’s lifetime mark is .305 as the leadoff guy. He steals bases, and he rarely is caught (267 out of 363 attempts). He makes contact more often than not (never more than 52 strikeouts in a season).

 

Since Pierre’s first full year in the majors with the Colorado Rockies in 2001, he hasn’t played less than 152 games in a season. He has spent each of his three seasons with the Marlins playing every game, including every inning during the 2004 season.

 

“In all of the decades I’ve been in the game, I’ve only had two workaholics — Tony Gwynn and Juan Pierre,” said McKeon, still employed by the Marlins.

 

It.'s hard to call Furcal's 2005 "superlative" considering his very poor (.254/.310) first half, in which he was fighting an injury. In the second half, Furcal put up a .322/.394/.474 line. Saying Pierre is rarely caught is just flat out wrong, and Furcal's success rate is considerably higher. And AVG isn't the issue, OBP is.

 

Whoever wrote that was really fluffing Pierre.

 

rarely caught. interesting. 73.5% is not a good percentage and actually has a negative effect on his team's ability to score runs. it makes pierre a poor baserunner, despite his speed. we don't need another poor baserunning, non-walking, slap-hitting leadoff hitter.

 

and the idea of jacque jones makes me want to puke.

[Magnetic Curses]

Now that I've taken a long look at our options (Pierre, Bradley and Patterson), I've thought about all the factors in aqcuiring (or keeping) all of these players - and come to this conclusion:

 

Trading (and possibly overpaying) for Pierre as a one-year stopgap and trading for Bradley (a misfit and supposed clubhouse-cancer) are almost not worth the effort. I thought I'd never say it but - Why not roll the dice on Patterson for one more year? His best numbers are better than Bradley's (although Bradley does K less, and play better D) and his teammates like him. If Hendry can focus his efforts on RF and SS, he can bury CP in the 8-hole and consider any positive production gravy. If he was to get Furcal and trade for an impact bat in RF, I think the Cubs would be just fine. Is anyone else thinking this way?

 

patterson has never put up close to .321/.421/.501/.922, so how are corey's best numbers superior?

[ThePenguin11]

Now that I've taken a long look at our options (Pierre, Bradley and Patterson), I've thought about all the factors in aqcuiring (or keeping) all of these players - and come to this conclusion:

 

Trading (and possibly overpaying) for Pierre as a one-year stopgap and trading for Bradley (a misfit and supposed clubhouse-cancer) are almost not worth the effort. I thought I'd never say it but - Why not roll the dice on Patterson for one more year? His best numbers are better than Bradley's (although Bradley does K less, and play better D) and his teammates like him. If Hendry can focus his efforts on RF and SS, he can bury CP in the 8-hole and consider any positive production gravy. If he was to get Furcal and trade for an impact bat in RF, I think the Cubs would be just fine. Is anyone else thinking this way?

 

patterson has never put up close to .321/.421/.501/.922, so how are corey's best numbers superior?

 

Patterson's HR, RBI, R and SB numbers are all even or better. Since Bradley has only played more than 101 games in a season (141 in 2004) his one season with an impressive OBP holds very little water with me. He is more of an injury risk than Patterson, he's kind of a jerk and very statistically sporadic. You just can't expect him to have a good OBP. I'm not saying Patterson is a better baseball player, but I am saying since their numbers are close, then why go through all of the trouble to get a headache for one year?

[MembersOnlyJacket]

Terence Moore of the AJC and Jack McKeon.

 

Evidently Pierre's "weak arm" doesn't bother two people who've seen him play a lot of ball. I say get him - especially if the Furcal deal falls thru.

 

Pursuing Pierre would behoove Braves|

 

By Terence Moore Wednesday November 30, 2005

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

 

Juan Pierre. He’s exceptional. He’s available. He’s exactly what the Braves need to push their consecutive streak of division titles to 15. Not only that, he’s capable of doing enough with his bat, glove, legs and heart to end their annoying habit of vanishing each October.

 

(Edited by moderator for copyrighted content--posting of entire article is prohibited)

 

Terence Moore is the same clown who said Georgia-Georgia Tech is not a sporting rivalrly. Unless Furman Bisher writes it, nothing in the AJC is worth reading.

[soapy]

Now that I've taken a long look at our options (Pierre, Bradley and Patterson), I've thought about all the factors in aqcuiring (or keeping) all of these players - and come to this conclusion:

 

Trading (and possibly overpaying) for Pierre as a one-year stopgap and trading for Bradley (a misfit and supposed clubhouse-cancer) are almost not worth the effort. I thought I'd never say it but - Why not roll the dice on Patterson for one more year? His best numbers are better than Bradley's (although Bradley does K less, and play better D) and his teammates like him. If Hendry can focus his efforts on RF and SS, he can bury CP in the 8-hole and consider any positive production gravy. If he was to get Furcal and trade for an impact bat in RF, I think the Cubs would be just fine. Is anyone else thinking this way?

 

I think you'd have to upgrade significantly at SS and RF (like maybe Furcal and Abreu). If that happened, I could definitely live with Patterson in CF. Also, hold on to Walker. Example:

 

Furcal

Walker

Lee

Abreu

Ramirez

Barrett

Murton

Patterson

 

I could live with that. I would prefer that they hold on to Hairston if they go that route as insurance if Corey continues to struggle.

[fearthecubs]

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

 

No, but by only backing "your" players on this forum, you're definately inferring that anyone else is pointless, therefore we most surely "have to get" Player X. That's my entire point - you can't approve the best canidates only, you have to be selective. I'm not implying anything so important to start an argument about, I just think you're too picky man!

Really, I'm not sure what can be said to this.

 

What are YOU talking about? Since when can we sign every FA we want thats on the shopping list?

[Magnetic Curses]

Now that I've taken a long look at our options (Pierre, Bradley and Patterson), I've thought about all the factors in aqcuiring (or keeping) all of these players - and come to this conclusion:

 

Trading (and possibly overpaying) for Pierre as a one-year stopgap and trading for Bradley (a misfit and supposed clubhouse-cancer) are almost not worth the effort. I thought I'd never say it but - Why not roll the dice on Patterson for one more year? His best numbers are better than Bradley's (although Bradley does K less, and play better D) and his teammates like him. If Hendry can focus his efforts on RF and SS, he can bury CP in the 8-hole and consider any positive production gravy. If he was to get Furcal and trade for an impact bat in RF, I think the Cubs would be just fine. Is anyone else thinking this way?

 

patterson has never put up close to .321/.421/.501/.922, so how are corey's best numbers superior?

 

Patterson's HR, RBI, R and SB numbers are all even or better. Since Bradley has only played more than 101 games in a season (141 in 2004) his one season with an impressive OBP holds very little water with me. He is more of an injury risk than Patterson, he's kind of a jerk and very statistically sporadic. You just can't expect him to have a good OBP. I'm not saying Patterson is a better baseball player, but I am saying since their numbers are close, then why go through all of the trouble to get a headache for one year?

 

a. I don't really want to explain to you why the stats you mention are practically worthless when comparing players. but you get the picture.

 

b. bradley has a career IsoD of .081, which means he'll put up an impressive OBP more than likely. so yes, compared to patterson, i can almost guarantee that he'll have a better OBP.

 

c. their numbers aren't close.

 

patterson: .252/.293/.414/.707

 

bradley .269/.350/.426/.776

 

Bradley even bests corey in SLG, which is supposedly patterson's strength, and a much more telling stat than HRs or RBIs.

 

d. don't care if he's a jerk, we won 10 more games with jerks in 2004 than we did with angels in 2005.

 

e. the only salient point you can make about bradley is that he's an injury risk, but then again, this team would have been in better shape had corey been more of an injury risk last season. anything we get is an upgrade, even pierre at this point.

[goonys evil twin]

I would take one more year of Patterson in the 8 hole if the other holes are filled with serious upgrades.

 

 

 

I'm not worried about Bradley being a clubhouse cancern as much as I'd be worried about him getting himself suspended or injured. But I'd love the chance to see him play for his first big contract in Wrigley.

[ThePenguin11]

Now that I've taken a long look at our options (Pierre, Bradley and Patterson), I've thought about all the factors in aqcuiring (or keeping) all of these players - and come to this conclusion:

 

Trading (and possibly overpaying) for Pierre as a one-year stopgap and trading for Bradley (a misfit and supposed clubhouse-cancer) are almost not worth the effort. I thought I'd never say it but - Why not roll the dice on Patterson for one more year? His best numbers are better than Bradley's (although Bradley does K less, and play better D) and his teammates like him. If Hendry can focus his efforts on RF and SS, he can bury CP in the 8-hole and consider any positive production gravy. If he was to get Furcal and trade for an impact bat in RF, I think the Cubs would be just fine. Is anyone else thinking this way?

 

patterson has never put up close to .321/.421/.501/.922, so how are corey's best numbers superior?

 

Patterson's HR, RBI, R and SB numbers are all even or better. Since Bradley has only played more than 101 games in a season (141 in 2004) his one season with an impressive OBP holds very little water with me. He is more of an injury risk than Patterson, he's kind of a jerk and very statistically sporadic. You just can't expect him to have a good OBP. I'm not saying Patterson is a better baseball player, but I am saying since their numbers are close, then why go through all of the trouble to get a headache for one year?

 

a. I don't really want to explain to you why the stats you mention are practically worthless when comparing players. but you get the picture.

 

b. bradley has a career IsoD of .081, which means he'll put up an impressive OBP more than likely. so yes, compared to patterson, i can almost guarantee that he'll have a better OBP.

 

c. their numbers aren't close.

 

patterson: .252/.293/.414/.707

 

bradley .269/.350/.426/.776

 

Bradley even bests corey in SLG, which is supposedly patterson's strength, and a much more telling stat than HRs or RBIs.

 

d. don't care if he's a jerk, we won 10 more games with jerks in 2004 than we did with angels in 2005.

 

e. the only salient point you can make about bradley is that he's an injury risk, but then again, this team would have been in better shape had corey been more of an injury risk last season. anything we get is an upgrade, even pierre at this point.

 

Bradley's statistics are up and down and his season's have been too short to use as a fair sample size. Yes, Patterson's saber stats blow. Noone disputes that.

 

For the record, I read Moneyball and put a lot of stock into the statistical research used in it (as a supplement to other means of predicting statistical success). I haven't made it my life's work to study every statistical category of sabermetrics, but you sure do have an arrogance in your tone when you speak of these statistics. Get over yourself.

[Magnetic Curses]

For the record, I read Moneyball and put a lot of stock into the statistical research used in it (as a supplement to other means of predicting statistical success). I haven't made it my life's work to study every statistical category of sabermetrics, but you sure do have an arrogance in your tone when you speak of these statistics. Get over yourself.

 

i didn't really mention any sabr stats, and any arrogance in my tone is purely inferred, not implied.

 

but for the record, you don't have to be Bob's Keeper to realize that corey, at this time, would be far less productive than bradley.

 

and just to clarify, bradley has had 2135 PA over his career, patterson 2306. I'd say it's easy to compare their career numbers from those sample sizes.

[ThePenguin11]

For the record, I read Moneyball and put a lot of stock into the statistical research used in it (as a supplement to other means of predicting statistical success). I haven't made it my life's work to study every statistical category of sabermetrics, but you sure do have an arrogance in your tone when you speak of these statistics. Get over yourself.

 

i didn't really mention any sabr stats, and any arrogance in my tone is purely inferred, not implied.

 

but for the record, you don't have to be Bob's Keeper to realize that corey, at this time, would be far less productive than bradley.

 

My point is to lose Walker in order to bring in baseball Satan, for a decent statistical upgrade is not worth all effort, when Hendry can focus his time with other teams and greater statistical upgrades. Maybe they're not considered sabermetric stats - but you get what I mean. To say that my statistical comparisons are worthless, and yours (based on injury and suspension shortened seasons) are totally valid, comes off as arrogant or at the very least - childish.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

For the record, I read Moneyball and put a lot of stock into the statistical research used in it (as a supplement to other means of predicting statistical success). I haven't made it my life's work to study every statistical category of sabermetrics, but you sure do have an arrogance in your tone when you speak of these statistics. Get over yourself.

 

i didn't really mention any sabr stats, and any arrogance in my tone is purely inferred, not implied.

 

but for the record, you don't have to be Bob's Keeper to realize that corey, at this time, would be far less productive than bradley.

 

My point is to lose Walker in order to bring in baseball Satan, for a decent statistical upgrade is not worth all effort, when Hendry can focus his time with other teams and greater statistical upgrades. Maybe they're not considered sabermetric stats - but you get what I mean. To say that my statistical comparisons are worthless, and yours (based on injury and suspension shortened seasons) are totally valid, comes off as arrogant or at the very least - childish.

 

Now, that's using an extreme hyperbole!

[Magnetic Curses]

For the record, I read Moneyball and put a lot of stock into the statistical research used in it (as a supplement to other means of predicting statistical success). I haven't made it my life's work to study every statistical category of sabermetrics, but you sure do have an arrogance in your tone when you speak of these statistics. Get over yourself.

 

i didn't really mention any sabr stats, and any arrogance in my tone is purely inferred, not implied.

 

but for the record, you don't have to be Bob's Keeper to realize that corey, at this time, would be far less productive than bradley.

 

My point is to lose Walker in order to bring in baseball Satan, for a decent statistical upgrade is not worth all effort, when Hendry can focus his time with other teams and greater statistical upgrades. Maybe they're not considered sabermetric stats - but you get what I mean. To say that my statistical comparisons are worthless, and yours (based on injury and suspension shortened seasons) are totally valid, comes off as arrogant or at the very least - childish.

 

saying that they're worthless is accurate, though it may have sounded a bit harsh, so i apologize for that.

 

as i've stated, both players have roughly the same amount of PA's over their careers to base a decent comparison of numbers upon. if walker nets us a CF of the caliber of bradley, i say do it, although I don't know why the dodgers would take walker, they seem set on the infield if they're making a run at furcal.

 

and vance is right, bradley is not baseball satan, there's already been one ty cobb.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

To say that my statistical comparisons are worthless, and yours (based on injury and suspension shortened seasons) are totally valid, comes off as arrogant or at the very least - childish.

 

He's 100% right. He already said he didn't want to go into a detailed post saying how wrong that is, that's not childish or arrogant. Runs and RBI are terrible to use since they are entirely dependent on your teammates, and partially your spot in the order. HR are nice, but using them to make a point about how one player is better than the other isn't effective. Numbers like SLG(which Sulley posted) do a much better job. Same with SB. They're useful to show how often a player is effective at their percentage, but SB% is much better. Plus, those numbers together show you nothing about the most important parts of hitting, getting on base, and how often they get past first base by themselves.

[ThePenguin11]

To say that my statistical comparisons are worthless, and yours (based on injury and suspension shortened seasons) are totally valid, comes off as arrogant or at the very least - childish.

 

He's 100% right. He already said he didn't want to go into a detailed post saying how wrong that is, that's not childish or arrogant. Runs and RBI are terrible to use since they are entirely dependent on your teammates, and partially your spot in the order. HR are nice, but using them to make a point about how one player is better than the other isn't effective. Numbers like SLG(which Sulley posted) do a much better job. Same with SB. They're useful to show how often a player is effective at their percentage, but SB% is much better. Plus, those numbers together show you nothing about the most important parts of hitting, getting on base, and how often they get past first base by themselves.

 

The only numbers you can compare in this situation are career statistics. SLG is almost the same. Bradley obviously edges him out in OPS because Patterson can't take a walk. SB%? Advantage Patterson. I never said Patterson was better - or even equal. I said we should MAYBE focus on SS and RF to get impact players there, since Bradleys marginally better statistics combined with his self-destructive personality and injury-risk might not make much of a difference.

 

Basically what I was getting at this:

 

Keep Patterson if you can get someone like Dunn in RF and lock up Furcal at SS. Read all my posts and you'll find that is the case.

[Magnetic Curses]

To say that my statistical comparisons are worthless, and yours (based on injury and suspension shortened seasons) are totally valid, comes off as arrogant or at the very least - childish.

 

He's 100% right. He already said he didn't want to go into a detailed post saying how wrong that is, that's not childish or arrogant. Runs and RBI are terrible to use since they are entirely dependent on your teammates, and partially your spot in the order. HR are nice, but using them to make a point about how one player is better than the other isn't effective. Numbers like SLG(which Sulley posted) do a much better job. Same with SB. They're useful to show how often a player is effective at their percentage, but SB% is much better. Plus, those numbers together show you nothing about the most important parts of hitting, getting on base, and how often they get past first base by themselves.

 

The only numbers you can compare in this situation are career statistics. SLG is almost the same. Bradley obviously edges him out in OPS because Patterson can't take a walk. SB%? Advantage Patterson. I never said Patterson was better - or even equal. I said we should MAYBE focus on SS and RF to get impact players there, since Bradleys marginally better statistics combined with his self-destructive personality and injury-risk might not make much of a difference.

 

Basically what I was getting at this:

 

Keep Patterson if you can get someone like Dunn in RF and lock up Furcal at SS. Read all my posts and you'll find that is the case.

 

keeping patterson doesn't begin to address this team's OBP problem. If we get dunn, it helps, but if we get dunn AND bradley, the OBP problem is a thing of the past. there is no bigger problem to address than OBP, none.

 

if we have Bradley's OBP next season in CF and dunn's in right, with furcal's .350 at SS, this is a division champ we're talking about.

[goonys evil twin]

keeping patterson doesn't begin to address this team's OBP problem.

 

Getting rid of him doesn't automatically solve it either.

 

I think what is being expressed is that there is more than one option. If you have to keep Corey in order to make deals that create bigger improvement elsewhere, it's not a terrible option. Obviously replacing Corey with a great OBP helps, but if you then go small in RF, that improvement can be negated, or at least partially offset, rather quickly.

[HerbalK]

Is this the current Pierre thread? Then here's this:

 

The Marlins offered Juan Pierre to the Yankees for pitchers Sean Henn and Scott Proctor, according to the New York Post.

Supposedly, the Yankees are thinking about it. We'd be shocked if the Marlins couldn't get more than this from another team, if not the Cubs than maybe the Rangers or Mariners. Neither Henn nor Proctor qualifies as a building block

 

Anyone know anything about these guys?

[Magnetic Curses]

keeping patterson doesn't begin to address this team's OBP problem.

 

Getting rid of him doesn't automatically solve it either.

 

I think what is being expressed is that there is more than one option. If you have to keep Corey in order to make deals that create bigger improvement elsewhere, it's not a terrible option. Obviously replacing Corey with a great OBP helps, but if you then go small in RF, that improvement can be negated, or at least partially offset, rather quickly.

 

i think replacing corey makes the most sense because CF is the most glaring OBP hole in the lineup, even burnitz's .320-something is an improvement compared to corey's sub .300. Bradley makes the most sense because he'd probably come cheaper than pierre and sports a much better IsoD. If we get the chance to improve our OBP by .060-.070 points in CF, I say go for it. Dunn would be just as big of an upgrade in right, but seems less likely. it's not that i dislike corey, it's just that CF would be the easiest position to upgrade OBP-wise.

 

don't get me wrong, we need a RF as well, and since hendry has neglected to add one to the roster as of yet, i assume that we will trade for someone capable in right to start the year, i hope.

[Magnetic Curses]

Is this the current Pierre thread? Then here's this:

 

The Marlins offered Juan Pierre to the Yankees for pitchers Sean Henn and Scott Proctor, according to the New York Post.

Supposedly, the Yankees are thinking about it. We'd be shocked if the Marlins couldn't get more than this from another team, if not the Cubs than maybe the Rangers or Mariners. Neither Henn nor Proctor qualifies as a building block

 

Anyone know anything about these guys?

 

don't know. and after this, i think hendry has gotten out of the pierre sweepstakes.

[goonys evil twin]

i think replacing corey makes the most sense because CF is the most glaring OBP hole in the lineup, even burnitz's .320-something is an improvement compared to corey's sub .300.

 

Corey himself could easily make up a huge chunk of that improved OBP. He was at .329 and .320 the two years prior to 2005. Making upgrades from 2005 to 2006 is more than just trying to get better numbers than what you got in 2005. Making changes has to be about getting better numbers than what you can expect from the guys you already have in 2006.

 

I don't think Corey will have a .254 OPB in 2006. I would not be at all surprised to see him with a career high .330 in 2006. Not that I expect him to be that high, or that I wouldn't trade him for Bradley, but keeping Corey should not be forgotten as an option.