Amazing_Grace

I like any scenario where Arizona misses the playoffs. That's the one team I really don't want to see. I especially don't want to play them in the first round, so Go Dodgers.

I think that's likely, considering they know he has previously expressed a lack of interest in ever playing there. He went to SD as cheaply as he did (at the time) for a reason, he wanted to be in that area. I don't think he'll change his mind and go to Boston. With that said, if he does decide to enforce his no trade clause, then SD has to pull him back, right? Then if they try to put him on waivers again, it would be unrevocable. If Boston claimed him again, can he refuse without retiring? SD wouldn't technically be trading him, so his no trade clause would be irrelevant, right? It's probably a moot point, SD wouldn't put him on unrevocable waivers and get nothing for him. I think that when another team claims someone on waivers, it's still considered a "trade" whether or not the team gets anything for it. If his no trade clause would apply now when Boston puts in a claim why wouldn't it apply then when Boston puts in a claim. After all, any trade in August is just a swap of guys who are on or have already cleared waivers. My guess is that if a scenario like this happened, Boston would have bought the rights to a player who had no obligation to play for them, and would be sitting on his butt somewhere in SD. However, Boston is probably going to be able to figure out whether or not Giles would actually refuse to play for them by just phoning his agent, and then wouldn't make the claim, unless they really wanted him not to play for Tampa.

This is quite true. His value would have been higher had he been dealt last season or this offseason. At this point, what we'll probably be able to get is a bullpen arm or a marginal pitching prospect. I have a great deal more confidence in this organization's ability to develop pitchers, so that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Yes they will, Felix Pie. I was assuming Pie would be traded, and I still think he will be this offseason. If Piniella is still the manager next season, Pie will not be starting in CF. He thought so little of Pie that he put Reed Johnson, a guy claimed off waivers with horrible splits against RH, in for him after only about 25 abs. Personally, I'm not convinced Pie will be able to hit ML pitching unless he learns some patience, and there's no evidence he has done that at AAA this season (.333 OBP with a .287 BA, and 37 K's to only 14 BBs). I wouldn't mind Pie as a 4th OF/injury substitution, but honestly, I think an organization like the Cubs that will already be getting relatively cheap production at SS, C, and 2b can afford to do better than a great defense/easy out CF. If I'm the GM, I leave Pie in Iowa with an ultimatum to either learn some plate discipline or you won't see the bigs with this team.

My issue is how many teams will be looking for a first baseman this offseason? Baltimore? San Francisco? Perhaps Kansas City? Unless Billy Butler can show why he was a former uber prospect. Maybe the Yankees. Maybe Detroit. Personally I would like to see Perry and Lee work on Lee's swing. For a big guy, he shouldn't be putting the ball on ground, he should be booming them onto Waveland. But apparently this yr, Lee has decided he rather be like Willie Mays Hays instead of Pedro Serrano. I don't know, his numbers seem to be hovering around his career stats, and wouldn't be surprising to see him stick around there. I really wouldn't mind the Cubs looking for a new #3 after this season since the power boosts from guys like Fontenot and Edmonds aren't something you can really count on. Lee would still make a damn fine #2 or #5 hitter, though I have no idea where the Cubs could get another big bat to play. Fukudome's basically blocking that option. I almost guarantee you Fukudome will be moved to CF in the offseason. The Cubs will have no CF, and will need a power bat. Milton Bradley will be a FA after this season. I'd go hard after him and then keep Reed Johnson around in case of an injury. We can then go get a 5th OF or use Hoffpauir in that role. I'd also consider trading DeRosa and trying for BRoberts again this offseason. Lee is starting to look like a right handed Mark Grace. Now, that's not a horrible thing, but that's not what you want out of your #3 hitter. In all honesty, Ramirez should be hitting 3rd with Lee 4th this year.

The problem is that the people who are really dragging down the offense right now aren't likely to be replaced. It's been Fukudome, Ramirez, Soto and to a lesser extent Lee, that have been really struggling. None of these guys can realistically be upgraded. The 3 possibilites for upgrade, DeRosa, Theriot, and Johnson/Edmonds have all been hitting well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3503599 That's a huge bid. Huge. And you never open with your best offer. It just means he is willing to go that much higher that that's where he started the bidding.

Those might be three of the least frequent walkers on the roster right now. Edmonds and Fontenot are taking bases on balls, as is DeRosa. For July: Soto: 69 PA, 3 BB Lee: 76 PA, 6 BB DeRosa: 68 PA, 8 BB Ramirez: 66 PA, 6 BB Theriot: 76 PA, 6 BB Edmonds: 55 PA, 9 BB Fukudome: 65 PA, 4 BB Fontenot: 51 PA, 9 BB Edmonds and Fontenot have been the best at drawing walks this month. Soto and Fukudome haven't been walking much at all. I stand corrected. Thanks. I'm often biased by the fact I see only the national telecast games and I'm often too lazy to look up the stats because I know someone will point out my error anyway.

I'll actually be mildly surprised if Cuban doesn't put in the highest bid. Men like him tend to get what they want, and the Cubs are obviously something he wants very much. Now, whether that means he will own the Cubs is another question. I could see the powers that be in MLB quietly supplying cash to a competitor in order to keep him out of baseball.

The value of OBP is more significant than the value of SLG, simply because of the difference in the numbers. A perfect OBP is 1.000, while a perfect SLG is 4.000. In the same vein, a .450 OBP is much more impressive than a .450 SLG. Of course, teams need both to win, and power and discipline are both important factors. The fall-back argument on why the equivalent OBP is more impressive: would you rather have a team OBP of 1.000, or a team SLG of 1.000? Easy, the team OBP of 1.000 means you're never out. Granted, the value of SLG is not 4 times more inflated than the value of OBP, either. Different people assign a different factor to equate the two, but I'm personally fond of a simple 1.5 factor right now (Recent years, it was inflated a bit by a league-wide power surge, but the gap has closed a bit). That is, OBP * 1.5 will be about the equivalent number of SLG. It's not technically that simple, but it'll find values that are essentially close enough: .400 OBP = .600 SLG .380 OBP = .570 SLG .360 OBP = .540 SLG .340 OBP = .510 SLG .320 OBP = .480 SLG This is why I said "point for point". It takes more than one point of SLG to equal one point of OBP. Mathematically, it takes 4. In terms of evaluating individual players, 1.5 is as good an estimate as any. OBP is more valuable as a team statistic because the number of outs in a season is fixed, but the number of TPA is not fixed. I have 3 outs x the number of innings, which because of extra inning games and not batting in the bottom of the 9th at home, varies slightly, but either way, there's no way for me to get more outs than 3xInnings batted. I can, however, get more TPA by increasing my OBP because TPA=Outs+"Not Outs" (yes I made that word up), and "Not Outs"=TPA*OBP. I'll spare you the math, but moving the numbers around, you get TPA=Outs/(1-OBP). As you can see, as OBP goes up, TPA goes up as well. It then becomes obvious why this is so important. OBP increases the number of opportunities for something good to happen over a season, while simultaneously increasing the chance something good will happen in any particular AB. That's without even considering arguably more important effects like forcing a starter to throw a lot of pitches and getting into the pen sooner. SLG doesn't have the same sort of effect. It simply measures how affective a particular player is likely to be given a single AB. It is an excellent tool for comparing individual players, but does not have as profound a significance on the team level. But does your TPAs not go up with slugging as well? You have to have gotten on base to have a slugging percentage. In addition you have to have gotten on base via a hit and a high SLG means you are getting exta base hits. In addition many of the anciliary effects, because again you are still getting on base, would be the same, I think, and players are more likely to be in scoring position (or in case of a HR already scored) putting even greater pressure on the pitcher. No, your TPA does not go up with SLG. TPA doesn't equate with SLG. SLG does not count walks, only hits. If walks were counted as singles and added into the SLG formula, then you would be partially correct. You would have a stat that included the effect I mentioned. Then you could cobble some formula together (I tried but it was way more complicated than I wanted to deal with), but either way you'd just be deriving back to OBP somewhere in your formula. Ultimately, the problem is that SLG treats every individual base in the double, triple, and HR as equally valuable to the first. Intuitively, we know very well that this is not correct, and mathematically, the odds of an individual getting a second base or third or fourth go way up if you simply take as a given that the runner reached first base, whether they advance because of xbh, SB, another player getting a hit, or whatever There are many ways to advance, but only 2 ways to get on base in the first place (walk or hit). The first base is, thus, the most valuable, and I would argue, the fourth base has the next greatest value (HR vs. triple). The third base is probably not as valuable as the second (triple vs. double) because the 2nd base makes a double play unlikely and puts the runner into scoring position. Obviously, you're going to end up with pretty subjective numbers if you try to figure all that up. Measuring the value of various bases is simply too complex because baseball has so many variables and possibilities. We can deduce enough from simple logic and statistics to understand that getting on base, the "first" base, is the most important, but by what degree is arguable, and the 1.5xOBP=SLG is a pretty good estimate if you're talking about the contribution of an individual player, IMHO. This isn't to say that SLG is not useful, or that a team need not be concerned about having good SLG. SLG is the second most important offensive stat. OBP is the first. You worry about lack of OBP more than lack of SLG, even though lack of either makes a player and a team less productive, because poor OBP will make your team worse than poor SLG, all other things being equal.

The value of OBP is more significant than the value of SLG, simply because of the difference in the numbers. A perfect OBP is 1.000, while a perfect SLG is 4.000. In the same vein, a .450 OBP is much more impressive than a .450 SLG. Of course, teams need both to win, and power and discipline are both important factors. The fall-back argument on why the equivalent OBP is more impressive: would you rather have a team OBP of 1.000, or a team SLG of 1.000? Easy, the team OBP of 1.000 means you're never out. Granted, the value of SLG is not 4 times more inflated than the value of OBP, either. Different people assign a different factor to equate the two, but I'm personally fond of a simple 1.5 factor right now (Recent years, it was inflated a bit by a league-wide power surge, but the gap has closed a bit). That is, OBP * 1.5 will be about the equivalent number of SLG. It's not technically that simple, but it'll find values that are essentially close enough: .400 OBP = .600 SLG .380 OBP = .570 SLG .360 OBP = .540 SLG .340 OBP = .510 SLG .320 OBP = .480 SLG This is why I said "point for point". It takes more than one point of SLG to equal one point of OBP. Mathematically, it takes 4. In terms of evaluating individual players, 1.5 is as good an estimate as any. OBP is more valuable as a team statistic because the number of outs in a season is fixed, but the number of TPA is not fixed. I have 3 outs x the number of innings, which because of extra inning games and not batting in the bottom of the 9th at home, varies slightly, but either way, there's no way for me to get more outs than 3xInnings batted. I can, however, get more TPA by increasing my OBP because TPA=Outs+"Not Outs" (yes I made that word up), and "Not Outs"=TPA*OBP. I'll spare you the math, but moving the numbers around, you get TPA=Outs/(1-OBP). As you can see, as OBP goes up, TPA goes up as well. It then becomes obvious why this is so important. OBP increases the number of opportunities for something good to happen over a season, while simultaneously increasing the chance something good will happen in any particular AB. That's without even considering arguably more important effects like forcing a starter to throw a lot of pitches and getting into the pen sooner. SLG doesn't have the same sort of effect. It simply measures how affective a particular player is likely to be given a single AB. It is an excellent tool for comparing individual players, but does not have as profound a significance on the team level.

IBL and I prefer Theriot's .750 OPS because most of his is OBP, where most of Cedeno's will be SLG. Point for point, OBP>SLG, and that's even more true for having a productive team than it is a productive player.

The Cubs are getting the 8th best production out of the 3-hole and 9th best out of the cleanup spot.....that's in the majors. Lee and Ramirez are and have been fine. They've been fine, over the course of the season. But as the person who started the thread noted, they are hurting the production right now. They've both struggled since May. Why are people jumping all over those who make threads expressing frustration at bad streaks? Does anybody really think it's reasonable to expect fans to just sit back, relax and calmly take in the season? I'm so sick of the absurd storyline that Cubs fans get so up and down during the year. Really Lou, maybe that's because you are used to managing in areas where nobody has any emotions regarding the local baseball club. Don't pretend the Yankees fans aren't the same exact way. They prepare to hang guys like ARod the first time he pops out with men on in the 9th. There's nothing wrong with ventings some steam when the team goes through stretches like it's going through now. The Cubs are last in the NL in OPS since the ASB. They are 10th in the NL in OPS in July. They are back to the bottom of the barrel in the NL in OBP largely because they aren't taking walks anymore. It's frustrating, and considering how crappy the offense has been for several years, it's a little disconcerting, and completely understandable why some would think it may be a sign of things to come. It's the non-walking that I find disturbing. It seems like Theriot, Fukudome, and Soto are the only guys still taking a walk on a somewhat regular basis.

I think 2 BPs will make no difference in the players' ability to hit. Taking it away may well cause them to think about a team problem and how to correct it. Lou's using this as a motivational tool. It's kind of like how Baylor would randomly call a guy out in the media. I like Lou's tactics better because he isn't singling anybody out, but it's the same concept. Call attention to a problem publicly and guys will hopefully work harder. If you have a team that has some pride and is contending, it can be a good tactic. I don't understand the criticism. At worst, we miss 2 BP out of 162. Wow, there goes the season. Maybe the move accomplishes nothing, but then we're really not any worse off are we? On the other hand, if we've got players showboating for the fans in BP ala 1998 Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa, then kudos to Lou for sending the message that he won't have any of it.

I think the Cubs could probably offer to trade their entire farm system and it wouldn't be enough for Holliday. I just hope he doesn't end up on the Cards or the Brewers. I'd prefer he end up in Philadelphia. Hell, if I were Hendry, I'd try to set up a triangle trade to get Fuentes and send Holliday to the AL.

Look out NL Central, Jay "Madagascar Howling" Gibbons is coming.

Acquiring Eckstein would be sort of like traveling 6 or 7 years in the future and getting a 33 year old Ryan Theriot to be his own backup. That said, we could do worse than young Eckstein/Theriot starting and old Eckstein/Theriot backing up. Cedeno is useless as a bench player. He needs to be traded where he can start everyday, where streakiness and impatience aren't as big a liability. I'd try to get Eckstein and maybe a low minors prospect for Cedeno. If a Burnett/Eckstein for Marquis/Cedeno/? could be done, I'd do it, but I bet the Jays wouldn't. The A's just got Philadelphia's 2nd best prospect for Joe Blanton. I bet the Jays can do better than Ronny Cedeno and whoever else we would send them. Also, why would they trade an overpaid pitcher and a SS they don't want for an even more overpaid pitcher and a SS who is probably worse than Eckstein anyway. There'd have to be a compelling 3rd and probably fourth guy in that deal going to the Jays and/or a lot of cash, and I'm not sure the Cubs have either. This is the kind of thing that would only happen if it got down to the wire on July 31, Burnett was throwing tantrums to be dealt, and nobody else was willing to give anything useful up. Also, wouldn't it be odd for the 2 most hated Cardinal players from their WS team a couple years ago to now both be on the Cubs roster?

Marquis will not end up with 10 wins. It's very possible he'll be traded and not get the chance anyway.

I still think the chances are somewhat slim that the Cubs keep Dempster. Dempster could easily command the same type of deal that Lilly/Padilla/Meche got last offseason, or it could be more if things keep on this pace. If he costs that much, you have to ask if it's really worth it. I don't see the Cubs doing this because I think they'll have to address the outfield again, either finding a CF that can contribute something offensively, or convincing Kosuke to move to CF and looking for a RF. The Cubs will still have Z and Harden as 1/2, Lilly as a decent 3, and that would leave Rich Hill, Sean Marshall, Gaudin, Lieber for the last two spots. I'd have Hill, Marshall and Gaudin basically have ST to win the last two spots, but bring back Lieber in case of emergency. I don't think Marquis will be an issue. I think he'll be dealt in the next two weeks unless Harden gets hurt. The other problem is that you never know how smoothly an ownership transition is going to go. The team could basically be locked in limbo for most of the offseason. It may be hard to spend any money beyond current payroll, and I have to believe they'll resign Wood before Dempster. Still, I've been worried about that since we knew the team was going up for sale in the 06/07 offseason, and the Cubs have spent like there was no tomorrow. It's really odd. Most other situations in baseball where there have been ownership changes, the team is basically frozen for some period of time, but since the team was put up for sale, the team has resigned Zambrano, brought in Fukudome, and traded for Harden.

Wow, this is dumb. On top of all the reasons already mentioned, there's the fact neither of them will probably be pitching out of the bullpen so they can be fresh to start, thus using 2 roster spots to fill one position and shortening the bullpen by one. Utterly, galactically, and epicly stupid move.

Hopefully he was off somewhere learning how not to be the 2nd worst baseball analyst on television (if you're wondering, McCarver is first). I'd rather listen to the dynamic duo of Chip Caray and Joe Carter take turns sniping at each other than listen to Morgan drone on about how great he was back in the day and how today's players just don't have the same grit and guts that he did.

Sorry, MojoPin and I got a little carried away. I thought it was hilarious. But seriously, for balls and strikes, I would like the umpires removed as soon as possible except for emergency situations. The technology might not be fast enough yet, but the K-zone they show on TV makes umpires look stupid on a pretty consistent basis. Such a critical facet of the game should be as consistent as possible. The only thing I wonder is how they overcome the fact that technically, the strike zone is a different size based on the hitter. It's supposed to be from the letters to the knees, which due to players of different heights and stances, can look way different from one guy to the next. You'd have to define the zone in a more objective way, such as the zone begins 24 inches off the ground and ends 42 inches off the ground in terms of height, and maybe that's something that needed to happen anyway I don't see how you'd ever call safe/out with machines. There are way too many possible angles and timing issues. You'd have to have umpires somewhere, if not on the field then in the replay booth.

Johnson should never start a game in RF or LF ever. He's fine as a platoon partner for Edmonds in CF but should be the last option anywhere else. I should have specified that I meant against LHP. Johnson should never start against RHP ever at any position. Against LHP, he's been an .800 OPS guy his whole career, and I don't see how that's not better than Kosuke's numbers against LHP, especially recently.

I like the approach they're taking with Hill so far. Let him work his way back slowly. This year's team is doing OK without him, so let's make sure he gets ready for next year. If I were JH, I'd let Hill work through all the levels of the minors for a couple starts each so that the hitters get better in smaller increments and there's less pressure on him all at once. He's not likely to have an impact this season anyway. May as well take the time and get some reps and consistency with his new delivery.

Certainly not while Marquis remains on the roster.