CubinNY

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors Not really what? His IsoD is .054 that's not terrible and with a BA of .299 he's not a low contact hitter either. hitting for a good average means you're a good contact hitter? it doesn't mean you are a low contact hitter. He's got a a BABIP that's well with in average ranges too. All and all it kind of says that Pie is not either of those things. Adam Dunn is a low contact hitter. Dave Kingman was a low contact hitter. Mark Bellhorne was a low contact hitter. i don't know why you're talking about batting average and babip. if you strike out a lot, you're a low contact hitter. felix pie strikes out a lot. in 2006 ryan howard struck out 181 times but hit .313. low contact hitter or not? Pie's ks are not that high. they don't have to be. that wasn't the point. that was just an example of how batting average doesn't show whether or not you make a lot of contact. lots of guys hit for good average and strike out a lot and lots of guys hits for poor average and don't strike out. pie strikes out a lot. whether or not he hits for high average doesn't change that. just because he is a low contact hitter doesn't mean he can't still be successful over his minor league career Pie has k'd .21%. The average is right around 20. That's neither high nor low. The fact that he has a decent batting average also provides more evidence that you and Tyrant are wrong.

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors Not really what? His IsoD is .054 that's not terrible and with a BA of .299 he's not a low contact hitter either. hitting for a good average means you're a good contact hitter? it doesn't mean you are a low contact hitter. He's got a a BABIP that's well with in average ranges too. All and all it kind of says that Pie is not either of those things. Adam Dunn is a low contact hitter. Dave Kingman was a low contact hitter. Mark Bellhorne was a low contact hitter. i don't know why you're talking about batting average and babip. if you strike out a lot, you're a low contact hitter. felix pie strikes out a lot. in 2006 ryan howard struck out 181 times but hit .313. low contact hitter or not? Pie's ks in the minors are not that high.

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors Not really what? His IsoD is .054 that's not terrible and with a BA of .299 he's not a low contact hitter either. hitting for a good average means you're a good contact hitter? it doesn't mean you are a low contact hitter. He's got a a BABIP that's well with in average ranges too. All and all it kind of says that Pie is not either of those things. Adam Dunn is a low contact hitter. Dave Kingman was a low contact hitter. Mark Bellhorne was a low contact hitter.

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right. Not really. A lot of those type hitters hit well in the minors but then get exposed in the majors Not really what? His IsoD is .054 that's not terrible and with a BA of .299 he's not a low contact hitter either.

A low-contact center fielder with no plate discipline? That remains to be seen but his minor league numbers indicate that you are probably more wrong that right.

I don't think the Cubs' flame-out in October should be used to criticize a decision that was made in April. That's a weird way to look at things. Pie was completely overmatched at the beginning of the year. He could barely make contact with the baseball; even a mediocre breaking ball was an adventure for him. Once Lou saw that -- whether it was in 40 at bats or 400 -- he needed to pull the plug. I think you're failing to draw a distinction between giving a player a chance to who looks like he could contribute, and just giving a guy a chance regardless of how he looked. Pie didn't show anything in the majors last year that indicated he should be given more at bats. I've said it before: Lou has his faults, but judging talent isn't one of them. He does a pretty good job of slotting in the right guys to play. Most guys don't come up from the minors and tear the cover off the ball. There is an adjustment period. If Lou cannot get over the adjustment period the prospect will have to be lucky to get an extended look. Lou had a problem with in Pie ST b/c he wanted to fit him into the Juan Pierre mode-slap hit-bunter-speed guy instead of letting Pie be who he is.

Why would they want to reinforce bad behavior? He's already demonstrated that he can put the bat on the ball. It seems to me that his development is at least partly contingent on his ability to swing at pitches he can drive. *Most* great hitters aren't hackers. Barry Bonds was extremely aggressive, there's a difference between being aggressive and being a hacker. An aggressive hitter to me is someone that swings at strikes and regardless of count will always swing hard even with two strikes and doesn't watch too many called 3rd strikes. I'm all for being aggressive as you have defined it, but I don't think that is the way vidographer is using it. Barry took his walks. Why the hell would the Cubs want to teach him to not have a good strike zone judgment? They want him to swing at pitches he can hit, swing hard yet mechanically fluid, I don't know how videographer defines it, but I'm sure the cubs approach is similar to the approach I mentioned as far as aggressiveness. As he matures, I'm sure they'll work more on the adjustment phase of hitting as well as the mental toughness aspect. I don't think they would or do, but within the context of this thread vidoagrapher has downplayed OBP and seemed to intimate that being aggressive will come at the expense of OBP. IMO, that's bad behavior.

I don't see any benefit in starting Vitters in Daytona. He didn't hit in Peoria last year in the short time he was there (all of 14 ABs, but still).

Why would they want to reinforce bad behavior? He's already demonstrated that he can put the bat on the ball. It seems to me that his development is at least partly contingent on his ability to swing at pitches he can drive. *Most* great hitters aren't hackers. Barry Bonds was extremely aggressive, there's a difference between being aggressive and being a hacker. An aggressive hitter to me is someone that swings at strikes and regardless of count will always swing hard even with two strikes and doesn't watch too many called 3rd strikes. I'm all for being aggressive as you have defined it, but I don't think that is the way vidographer is using it. Barry took his walks.

Why would they want to reinforce bad behavior? He's already demonstrated that he can put the bat on the ball. It seems to me that his development is at least partly contingent on his ability to swing at pitches he can drive. *Most* great hitters aren't hackers.

Maybe Hendry wanted Olsen too. He does have perceived value outside of whatever Towers might have wanted. Hendry may have traded Pie for him for reasons that have little to do with Peavy.

The Clear a synthetic substance from my understanding. That means it has no legal standing until it goes through the FDA. It's splitting hairs and a technicality though. As for the "sealed testimony" it's a matter of public record b/c Bonds is being brought up on lying.

Big Z is pimped out. Is it me or does Fotenot look like your garden variety meth user? I picture him is a character in Breaking Bad.

That will be his legacy unless he can recreate himself as a top of the line closer. For one game he was.

... I'm saying I could be way, way off on the Reds, hence "dark-horse". ...

According to the box score, Gooden only threw 73 pitches in the 10 innings. That's probably why nobody complained. Not saying this disproves your point, just that in that specific case it's not a big deal. the opposing pitcher threw 9 innings and Gooden threw 250 innings with 12 CG's at age 21 It's more about pitches/inning than innings pitched.

It's like looking into the sun.

Brewers 85-90 wins Reds 82-88 wins Cubs 81-87 wins Cards 76-81 wins Astros 72- 77 wins Pirates 65-70 wins The Brewers are not in the 85-90 win range. Yeah, for all of the "Cubs are worse than last year" discussion, what are the Brewers after losing Sabathia and Sheets? They haven't technically lost Sheets yet. Cubs are around the 85-90 win range. Yea and putting the Reds as being better than the Cubs is just silly. Not having Yost will make up for the 1/2 of a season they got out of CC. Sheets is a wash as they are getting back Gallardo. They have a very potent offense. The Reds are my dark horse, Dusty's gotten lucky before and Walt is a very good GM, but they are just as likely to finish below .500 as they are above it. As it stands right now I think the Cubs are anywhere from 10 to 15 games worse than they were last year, maybe worse if the bullpen is as bad as I think it is going to be.

Brewers 85-90 wins Reds 82-88 wins Cubs 81-87 wins Cards 76-81 wins Astros 72- 77 wins Pirates 65-70 wins

Hendry doesn't get it. The problem wasn't Marquis, it was Marquis contract. He was a very good 4th or 5th starter but he was payed like #1 or #2. Sabathia 7 years, 161 million Burnett 5 years, 82.5 million Lowe 4 years, 60 million Dempster 4 years, 52 million Moyer 2 years, 13 million Silva 4 years, 48 million Eaton 3 years, 24.5 million Hernandez (Orlando) 2 years, 12 million Igawa 5 years, 46 million (including posting fee) Lilly 4 years, 40 million Marquis 3 years, 21 million Matsuzaka 6 years, 103 million (including posting fee) Meche 5 years, 55 million Mulder 2 years, 13 million Mussina 2 years, 23 million Padilla 3 years, 33.75 million Schmidt 3 years, 47.5 million Suppan 4 years, 42 million Williams (Woody) 2 years 12 million Zito 7 years, 126 million There is every multi-year starting pitching deal given in the past 3 years. Every player who was considered a possible #1 or #2 at the time he was signed (Sabathia, Burnett, Matzuzaka, Schmidt, Zito, and possibly Lilly) got a contract that was much different from the one of Marquis. Just think about that. The best comparable contracts to the ones of Marquis on the market today? Jamie Moyer, Adam Eaton, Mark Mulder, and Woody Williams. Is Marquis worse than that group? Absolutely not. Does spending money on average starting pitchers not make sense instead of dipping into the minor leagues? That argument has some merit as starting pitching gets a premium on the free agent market and the money might be able to be better spent in other areas. But as far as value on the market, Marquis was not overpaid. In fact, of the 20 contracts listed above, the one for Marquis will probably be ranked 6th or 7th when all is said and done for effectiveness. At the time of the contract Marquis was severely overpaid. He's still overpaid (he'll make over 10 Million dollars) and now the Cubs will be paying him to pitch for someone else.

Actually, Lou IS stupid. Or at least he manages the team like he is. LEFTIES VETERANS VERSATILITY To Lou, these three qualities serve as Viagra fueling his old, wrinkly, managerial boner. I agree. Lou is a slightly better white version of Dusty. The 2004 team could have won 97 games if everyone was healthy all season as well. The one thing Lou does better is deal with the media/meatball fan group and stick with younger players if they are doing well. The actual in game management is pretty much the same. I think Lou is a much better in-game manager than Dusty. I can't see anyone this side of Ned Yost who is worse. IMO, Lou's biggest strong suit is that he doesn't tolerate relief pitchers who cannot through strikes. On the other hand, this leads to severe overuse of some relievers while others sit on the bench and rot until they are traded. He does have all those bad qualities that Clipperton pointed out though. He's pretty old school, but he doesn't tend to over-manage like LaRussa. All and all, he's mostly good.

Hendry doesn't get it. The problem wasn't Marquis, it was Marquis contract. He was a very good 4th or 5th starter but he was payed like #1 or #2.

why are the fans dumb, because they don't want their franchise to be a laughingstock? steinbrenner paid off a small-time bookie to dig up dirt on dave winfield; he was behaving like an idiot and if i were a yankee fan i would've wanted him gone too. he was acting like an ass, sure, but he was also putting the pieces together for what the Yankees became. The Yankees didn't become anything because of Steinbrenner. They were already the Yankees. The money his group payed for them was a pretty big sum in 1973.

Bagwell came up in 1991. Some people think the era started in 1988, some say 1992, however, "the steroid era" probably will be bracketed to just after the players strike in 1994 to 2006 (50 game suspension). We could unreasonably stretch that to 1998 and you would have a point. However, he was a remarkably consistent player with no evidence to suggest he was juiced, and was one of my favorites. He should be a no brainer but he's still tainted like everyone else.

Anyone: What organization had the best farm system? Does the "class" of the system correlate strongly with draft position? What I mean is if the Rays had the best system could it be because they've always picked so high?