TruffleShuffle

hey the flyers lost and forsberg got hurt, boy am i shocked on both accounts

Also, note that in his first really solid game this year, the Cubs scored 9 runs, with 7 coming in the first 3 innings. That gave him a chance to just go out and pitch with a big lead, and not think about what each mistake would mean. The Cubs' incompetent offense manufactured all of 1 run during the first 4 games he pitched. It can't be easy for a young guy who's struggling to pitch knowing that his team would lose the game if he made a couple of mistakes.

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump. Did you see how he pitched in spring training last year? There were at least 5 others who were better. When Rusch absolutely sucked in April, they brought Hill up to pitch on May 4th and he sucked even worse. They ran him out there for 4 consecutive starts and each time, Hill did not pitch well. If Dusty had continued to run him out there and Hill continued to put up an ERA over 9, not only would fans say that Dusty isn't trying to win, but they would attack him for ruining a very promising pitching prospect with a somewhat fragile psyche by continuing to let him fail over and over again thus proving to Rich that he doesn't have what it takes to perform in the big leagues. No, Dusty and Jim did the right thing. They protected their prized prospect and sent him down to AAA where he had been redefining the word domination for the past year to get his confidence back and work on what was apparently having him fail at the big league level which was spotting the fastball. Apparently, once he improved his control with his fastball and was consistent with it, he was called back up. That took about 7 weeks in AAA to do. In his first start after being called back up, Hill failed. Did Dusty sit him? No. Just like in May, he gave him another shot. This time Hill did not fail. And Rich never looked back. In Hill's case, the results speak for themselves. He was handled right. In some cases I'd agree with you, but he was only given four starts before being sent back down, and only two of those were really awful. He had to learn to trust his fastball in the big leagues, and I really don't see how sending him back to a place he'd already been successful accomplished that. If I remember correctly, he had already been dominating AAA before the first call-up; he didn't improve his control and consistency of his fastball in Iowa because he already was throwing the ball great down there.

It's also pretty lame that you're arguing that he was only motivated in 2006 because it was his free agent year, when he's had two other seasons just about as good.

The problem is that people started to not care about the Cubs last year. They had worse ratings than the Sox and attendance was lousy during the last month. Cub fans actually expect ownership to field a competitive team. Last year in the offseason, next to nothing was done to make the team better. The team shouldn't be awful in 2006, whereas if they'd gone with your rotooling period, it would've been. So attendance is even worse this year, ratings are worse, revenue is down and then the payroll either stagnates or goes down. I'm aware that you think the Cubs are not giving themselves the best chance to win down the road, but the team has to consider things other than that, because most fans are not like you.

also, when the person takes four steps, it's travelling

The Cubs were 4 wins below their pythagorean W-L record, so this suggests they were fairly unlucky last year (along with being bad). A season of Izturis/DeRosa with some spot starts by Theriot will probably outperform a half season of Walker/Cedeno and then Cedeno/Izturis and Cedeno/Theriot. Cedeno was a black hole and Walker was really pretty mediocre with the Cubs last year. Lee played only 50 games last season. The Cubs could easily get 100 more games out of him, meaning 100 less games of Walker/Mabry/Nevin troika. Cedeno had an OPS+ of 53 last year. Mabry and Perez each had over 200 ABs and each had an OPS+ of 53. Now you're looking at a bench with Theriot and Ward, who will easily be better than the trash last season. Barrett played less than 2/3 of the games in 2006. Murton can be expected to improve a little bit from last season. Pitching: You hopefully replace Rich Hill's crappy early season games with average to good games. He pitched only 16 games last year; this year if he's healthy, he'll double that total. Marmol and Guzman were flat-out bad; no Cub starter is likely to be that bad this year. Marshall was also bad; Marquis probably won't be that bad this year, and if he is, he'll be replaced in the rotation. Dempster might be better this year. No Glendon Rusch, less Novoa, no Williamson, more Wuertz. Wood will probably be good in whatever innings you get out of him from the pen. Prior might not give you much, but he'll do better than 9 atrocious starts. At the worst, I'd expect him to not pitch, in which case he'd still be better than last year. I don't think the Cubs are going to be great, but it's easy to see a lot of ways in which they can improve over last year. Mostly, I think, the Cubs have taken most of the worthless pieces from last year (Cedeno, Mabry, Neifi, Guzman, Marmol, Rusch) and replaced them with players who will likely do significantly better (with the exception of shortstop, where Izturis will probably be only marginally better than Cedeno was). That, along with hopefully a full year from Lee and the large increase in production from Pierre to Soriano, is a reason that an improvement of 15-20 games is not unreasonable.

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump. True, although given his mental issues in the past, it's not surprising that he had some bumps adjusting to the big leagues. There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the Cubs not having a #2 starter, but other than paying out the butt for Zito or Schmidt, the Cubs' most realistic chance at having a legitimate #2 is Rich Hill. A lot of people just make him out to be a #4 starter or something, and I don't see it at all. He's either been great or bad depending on his control. I think he's either a #2, borderline #1, or he bombs and can't stick in the rotation. There's really not a lot of in between for him. I'm petrified to predict that he'll be great this year, but I really can see him having a fantastic 2007. His stuff is that good.

I do think Rich will have a really solid year, but I'm still nervous about him for just one more year. If he comes out and throws lots of strikes I'll have my fears eased. Guys whose pitching problems were mostly mental make me worried because sometimes the switch can turn off just as quickly as it turned on. His past two years really have been night and day from his first three with the organization, and if he has a consistent, solid start to the season, I'll feel really good about his future.

What's this defense concept? Is that accounted for in EqA, BABIP, VORP and OPS+? Amazingly, defense isn't factores into EqA, BABIP, or OPS+. Similarly, it's not included in other offensive stats, like BA, HR, RBI, or SB. It is, however, included in VORP, which is the reason he has a higher VORP than Wilkerson, as sited above. And before I give up anything for Taveras, who has fringe starter/bench player potential, I'd just start Pie. I'd prefer Taveres to Pie just because I think Pie really could use another season at Iowa to learn plate discipline (see: Corey Patterson) but I also don't want the Cubs to give up much of value for a guy who's not that good, and probably wouldn't be of much use after one year. Just keeping an outfield of Murton/Jock/Soriano probably is the best solution at this point.

It was his contract year. Wait til the Cubs flop midway thru his 8 year deal. Then we'll see how motivated he is. By this logic, no player will try if he's financially secure and playing for a bad team. No. I question Soriano's motivation because he performed way above his career norms in a contract year. A player who has been a steady performer from year to year is a different case. OPS+: 2002 - 131 2003 - 128 2006 - 132 So what were his motivations in 2002 and 2003?

oh please God no

Yeah, and if my mom had a weiner, she'd be my dad. There's no sense dealing in "ifs." The Cubs don't have Beltran, and they don't have Burnett (who made only 21 starts last year, by the way). What the Cubs did this offseason or do in future offseasons won't change whatever mistakes the Cubs may have made in the past.

It was his contract year. Wait til the Cubs flop midway thru his 8 year deal. Then we'll see how motivated he is. By this logic, no player will try if he's financially secure and playing for a bad team.

I don't either, but I don't think the Cubs are going to be crippled financially like you seem to believe.

What? Schilling wasn't "liked" by the Boston media, until the sock. Before that he was a cocky guy who provided great quotes. A consistent .900 OPS player is unlikely to succeed? I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll hit in that lineup in that park. I lived in New England long enough to know what things are like there. You're completely wrong about Schilling. He wanted to go there to win. Before he was signed, he went onto the Sons of Sam Horn message boards and talked to Red Sox fans, and he continued to do so throughout his first year (at least). Regardless of what the media thought of him, fans loved him. If Drew doesn't stay healthy and hit very well, the fans will turn on him.

This team it was. Cubs' prospects are not very impressive right now, meaning they can't really hope to build from within like the Marlins did. The only real option would have been to sell off guys like Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano and get good minor league talent for them, and start from there. That idea wouldn't fly because the Cubs are a big-market team with a fed up fan base, and trading away the only good players would just serve to alienate more fans.

yeah, that was the problem alll those years, not the hopelessly incompetent pitching staffs ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Agreed.. it doesn't say he failed it, just that maybe the Red Sox are seeking some sort of protection so that the whole thing isn't guaranteed. Smart move on their part. He's not going to succeed in Boston. For one, they're very tough on professional athletes, especially ones who play for the Red Sox. The guys they like most are ones who are perceived as lunchpail guys, like Schilling with his bloody sock, or Damon. Even Manny Ramirez, who'd never be confused for Pete Rose, at least has his particular quirk - he's just sort of goofy and laid back. And consistently putting up lines in the neighborhood of .320/40/120 is certain to win some popularity. Drew, on the other hand, has the type of personality that won't go over well in Boston. He's perceived as a mercenary with no loyalty to any given organization, and he's also perceived as being soft. He's very cool emotionally on the field, but doesn't look like he's really having fun. He's just the type of athlete that Boston doesn't like. I think it'll probably be a disaster within 2-3 years.

Yeah regardless of an attitude problem, he's a talented guy in his mid-20s who has had success at the major league level. Why you'd trade that away for a guy like Gload who is pretty much just roster-filler is beyond me.

Atlanta +3 (win outright) Tampa +13.5 Carolina +2.5 (dunno about this, but home dogs have been money this year) Green Bay -5 Cleveland +11 Tennessee +3.5 (win outright) NY Jets +3.5 New England -11 Washington +10 Miami +1 Arizona +2.5 (again, picking based on the home dog premise) St. Louis +1 (actually I don't really believe in this pick, but I just can't pick Oakland) NY Giants -5.5 San Diego -9 Indianapolis -3

In news about other hockey teams, the Flyers just lost to the Penguins for what I think was the 30th time this season.

What's this defense concept? Is that accounted for in EqA, BABIP, VORP and OPS+? I know, it's impossible for someone to mention both in back to back sentences. How could they account for both? awesome work

What's this defense concept? Is that accounted for in EqA, BABIP, VORP and OPS+?

The Astros also liked deferring a lot of money. I think they'll be paying Roger Clemens and Jeff Bagwell after they die.