KingKongvs.Godzilla

To be uncertain whether or not a prospect has panned out? Are you trolling? Yes and then no.

Even simply on talent I'd pick Hamels. Lefty K pitcher all day...

He probably will. Edit: 27 is old? The team too!

But Samardzija did become way better at baseball. Maybe. Way too late nevertheless. And not to the extent that was expected. He's 26.

I like hyperbole sometimes.

But Samardzija did become way better at baseball. I'm starting to become convinced that maybe 5 people noticed this. In the second half of the season he was arguably the team's best reliever. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=59407 12 people? :-o

But Samardzija did become way better at baseball. I'm starting to become convinced that maybe 5 people noticed this. In the second half of the season he was arguably the team's best reliever. Hell, after Garza, Dempster, and Marshall he was probably the Cubs' next best pitcher all year. Fangraphs is even a fan of the pitches he threw this year...all had positive values...even more interesting is that he threw at least 4 different pitches. Shark's got an interesting future...I'm really curious to see what they do with him because he's someone who might be reliever to starter candidate over the next couple seasons.

We should definitely have t-shirts made. We just need a catchy slogan. Tss. Root fa Lake or jump in a river or ocean or somethin.

The point to those comparisons is that you don't succeed late in your career based purely on physical ability or Pierre and Soriano would have been much better players toward the end of their careers. Players whose production is largely tied into their speed and athleticism (as SBs and BABIP-driven BA largely are and defense sometimes is) tend to decline rapidly as they age. Players who have skills not tied into speed and athleticism (patience and sometimes defense) tend to age more gracefully as they have something to fall back on when the speed and athleticism goes. [b] You keep arguing that Crawford will succeed later in his career because he's a physical specimen with great speed and athleticism. [/b]The likelihood of those holding up into his mid 30s is low because people get slower and less athletic as they get older. WITH SKILLS! What is so hard to get about that? The man has elite BASEBALL skills and is an elite BASEBALL athlete...Patience is not one of them...That is well established...Patience is not the only skill that ages well. So we've got .482....466...400 ('08, the year he didn't play 150+ games due to injury)...back to .452 in a healthy '09....495 in 2010....and then last year's .405...what's to worry about here? Seems to me that overall when he's been on and healthy he's been able to hit with some solid power in his mid-late 20's... You've never heard that players generally....no matter the plate discipline...which I'm still wondering why you speak of it as if it's the only worthwhile skill in baseball...gain power as they get older? Hm well...didn't find the James or Tiger thing I wanted in the quick Google search I just did, but I did just find a BP study that said that BB rates tend to peak around age 33...more optimism for the unskilled, only an athlete Crawford. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9933

Oh and btw...dramatic power increase? That's what I said? Is it not natural for most players to see a boost in power as they Age and see drop offs in other areas but gains in size and muscle/mass? Hasnt this been shown numerous times by people like James and maybe TangoTiger (not sureif it's him I'm thinking of)? Hell, didn't Crawford SLG .492 just in 2010 playing in a pitchers park in a depressed power environment all around?

Dude Crawford IS a highly skilled baseball player. The only thing new about your direction is that you took mine and are just making the oppposite conclusion about Crawford. You're just on him for not being super patient and extrapolating it to not being skilled.....it's not true and it's where youve been wrong this whole time. You don't play D like he does and steal bases efficiently like that without being a skilled player. Those are skills. Also again, he's a better and more efficient all around baseball player than Soriano ever was. The comparison in athleticism loses its place in reality once you realize that Soriano is a power hitter who happen to be fast, and was an adventure defensively for most of his career. They share nothing in common athletically except that you can call them good athletes, that they're fast, and that they don't walk much. Youve even gone from Pierre to Soriano now just looking for fast OFers who declined quickly in their 30s...you've gone from comparing him to slap hitter to a power hitter based on the simple facts that all 3 are/were fast and didn't walk....then calling that a similar skillset as if that's a total skillset. The ability to draw walks is not the only skill that makes you age well, and Crawford has many many traits of guys that do (including being a more skilled all sound player than both guys you want to compare him to). There are more skills in the baseball world than taking walks. . It is not the only factor in who ages well and who doesn't. Also you didn't answer...who is more likely to maintain their .350 OBP...the guy who can put up a .450 SLG or the guy who can't get his over .400?

Mark Sanchez > Josh Freeman.

Yeah so basically Hamels and then drop a tier everyone else...I do think he stays in Philly, but maybe he gets the itch to lead a staff of his own instead of always playing second or even third fiddle in Philly. I like Danks and Greinke a bit...Cain would be alright...g'luck to anyone who pays Anibal Sanchez...way too many arm injuries...same for Liriano and Marcum... Oh that reminds me...2012 trade candidate: Jonathan Sanchez. Still pretty young lefty at 29 who can get K's with good stuff...didn't suck until the WS in the playoffs his first time there...no room in the loaded Giants rotation...Dot dot dot.

If no Sabathia 2012 then Hamels 2013!

Of which Harden would still be in the extreme end of lean amongst the SPs, most likely.

Don't forget defense. Now ask yourself which is more sustainable...a .350 OBP with a .450+ SLG (as Crawford has done with that .350+ OBP)...or a .350 with a sub-.400 SLG? Two completely different hitters here...Pierre is and was a one dimensional hitter...Crawford is not. Well: - 3 > 2 - Those two seasons came in the only seasons he missed significant time in. He played only 109 games in '08 and 130 this past season. Otherwise he's played at least 143 in his 7 other full seasons. - One of those two seasons came during Year 1 on a new big name team with a new big time contract after playing in someone's basement for 10 years. So...context. - Even if I couldn't explain away his recent down years, you'd have alot of trouble convincing me that "he's just having higher peaks and lower valleys" is enough to explain why a 10 year vet who's been as valuable as Crawford is having variance. Especially when there's more obvious reasons in the numbers...like missed games that usually suggest injury in a player who's been so durable. Even if you want to argue that he hasn't gotten more patient...He's gotten *better.* He's a better hitter than what he was when he was younger, and he's a very good all around offensive player when he's on. 1: Why are you making those sound like that's not alot of skills, and valuable ones at that? Because he doesn't have the holy grail of skills? 2: You forgot batting average. 3: Oh and we're talking elite speed, solid power, moderate patience, and elite defense. Pierre offered what...elite, albeit inefficient speed? Yeah, the fact that they don't have similar skillsets is what makes them not have similar skillsets. Again, besides being fast OFers who don't walk alot they have very, very, very different skillsets. 1 -Patience isn't the only skill that ages well either. 2 - Crawford is not Soriano. They're two different builds on two different athletes who again are vaguely similar in that they're fast, OFers, and dark. Soriano is more wiry and gangly than Crawford, and was never a really good, consistent defender though he could be competent out there. Crawford is a more efficient all around player than him too, another reason why he'll last longer and age better. 3 - Athletes of Crawford's caliber tend to age better than most, if not all, other kinds of athletes in the first place. He's a former multi-sport guy who has always played high end D, always stolen bases efficiently, and has They have similar traits. They do not share similar skillsets. Nowhere would you find anyone who would say that Pierre has high end defensive ability, highly efficient speed (led the league in CS 7 times), and solid power. Those are part of Crawford's skillset. Minimize it all you want, it's real, and it makes him a far better gamble. It's only a huge negative if you choose to fix your eyes on it, and close your eyes to everything else. Another general connection between guys who last: Athleticism. The healthiest, best athletes will last the longest, as it's always been. Also, Crawford should see a boost in power as he gets older and his speed disappears...as often happens. I still completely disagree, but this makes far more sense than that Pierre stuff you're trying to jam down my throat. Beyond patience he has every skill that say he'll age just fine...not to mention he's the caliber of player and athlete who should age well....He's a better bet than someone like Pierre (one skill - singles) to age well, and overall he's a better bet than a great deal of players to age well.

Naked women with large breasts. Or sumpin.

Yet he's made over a hundred of million dollars as a high end athlete in a professional sport...Hmmm...and you're the guy who threw himself into the conversation on that basis that me calling Wilson a fire hydrant is a bad thing and running with it from there....Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,...... http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/does-size-matter-part-6/ Oh and: http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-05-16/sports/17294158_1_strain-body-muscle Again, the closest Harden and Wilson get is height. I'll even go so far as saying that if CC he was 6'1 rather than 6'7, he'd be built more like Wilson than Harden.

Lake is relatively fast and an efficient base runner. He was 38/44 during the regular season. On the flip side, while he's hitting well, he's sporting a 10/2 K/BB ratio in 36 AFL at bats. Bothersome considering some of those walks will end up turning into doubles. I've been quite impress with what i've seen thus far. He's an intriguing player with some nice tools. And with is aptitude in baserunning this year, the dominant of High A, the not falling apart int he AFL, and the signs of power he's shown this year we're seeing that he's someone who is showing legit developing skills. Not anyone's favorite prospect, not someone who's going to become that dream .300/.400/.500 player with a good K:BB and a position he owns from Day 1, but definitely a good upside guy. I feel like in a different/more hyped system we'd hear more about someone like Lake...He's got some Soriano in his game, though he doesn't have young Soriano's wrists to generate bat speed that generated Soriano's formerly really impressive power. I'm glad to hear that most of the Cubs prospects seem to be doing alright for themselves out there...Vitters 2012.

The only one guy I'm truly interested in there is Danks. Floyd and Billingsley are a notch above Jackson to me as far as interest goes, but neither is a game changer. Danks has the [huge] advantage of being LH on top of being the youngest of the bunch...He'd cost a truckload in prospects and then we'd have to pay him...same for the other two really. That's why I' prefer going balls out and grabbing the ace while he's out there (if he's out there) as a FA. There's only so many true aces out there in the pros...and I'm not sure there's a guy out there who's better established as one than CC, who's an old dog at this stuff at the young age of 30/31.

Because it's a good thing to have body fat? How is this not computing? What am I saying that's so out of this world? And I mean what I said...not what you think I said...not what you're interpreting it to be...not the garbage you've added to try to make it sound stupid...You came into here disagreeing with a statement you clearly didn't understand, and have continued to run with it anyway. To dignify the bs anyway: About the only thing Harden and Wilson have in common is that they're both ~6'1". Otherwise, Wilson is more thickly built, has a bigger lower body, wider/broader shoulders...In that sense he's closer to CC than he is Harden, and it probably helps play a part in Wilson's durability vs Harden's attempts at being durable...as well as mechanics, natural athleticism and flexibility...

Holy [expletive] are you being purposely obtuse? Is this a moment of f'ng with me? What are you reading? Yes, it is good to have a healthy balance of both muscle and fat. Obviously, it's better to have more muscle than fat. CJ Wilson is very well built for the job of being an MLB starting pitcher. Is this good enough? Who's the traded pitcher? What will he cost in prospects and money? How much will Edwin Jackson get? Will I stay away for his starts? See it sounds so simple to go off into believing that, but Jackson + ?? pitcher will cost a good price too. Jackson is as likely to get overpaid in FA as any FA pitcher...he's a hard throwing, late 20's pitcher with ML success, a good pedigree, some postseason experience (I think), and no significant injury history.... I'd much rather pay CC Sabathia 5/6 125/150 than overpay for a mid-tier like Jackson and then hope for someone to show up on the trade market...The goal of the Cubs should be to shoot for the best IMO.

I remember reading a few years ago that it's actually a really good thing for a pitcher to have a healthy amount of meat on their bodies. It's got to make some sense...Your body is taking an absolute beating overhand throwing a ball off of elevated ground. I guarantee there are very, very few good, healthy pitchers who rock a 6 pick. Look at Rich Harden...dude was cut as all heck and it did nothing for his durability. Meanwhile CJ Wilson, similar height (6'/6'1"), is built like a fire hydrant and hasn't had an arm injury since '03 or so. Not sure what you're trying to imply about Wilson's shape, but the guy works out like a machine and is anything but fat. Probably has one of the lowest body fat percentages among major leaguers. I'm implying that it's good to have meat on you and that Wildon owns a very good build for a pitcher. A fire hydrant is a good thing to be built like...they're very stout those things.

Unfortunately that still won't put Pierre in the same tier as Crawford at any point in his career...not even really young Crawford vs. whatever year of Pierre. I don't think that's really the point. It certainly doesnt help the point.

Unfortunately that still won't put Pierre in the same tier as Crawford at any point in his career...not even really young Crawford vs. whatever year of Pierre.