CubinNY

I already tried that tactic and it was found lacking. The way I see it, Theriot is a good bet to be at replacement level performance, or close to it. Cedeno probably is too, but at least there's a chance that he sees the light.

NL East Mets NL Central Brewers NL West D'Backs NL Wild Card Padres --------- AL East Red Sox AL Central Tigers AL West Angles AL Wild Card Indians --------- World Series Boston v. New York World Series Winner New York ---------- Firings Joe Girardi, Ozzy Guillen, Charlie Manuel

Because that's not a fair comparison? Whether you want to admit it or not, age is relevant to the discussion. It's somewhat relevant, but still players tend to blossom at different ages. People aren't flowers. However, players tend to get better then plateau at around age 26-28. At least Cedeno has a chance. But really, this is an incredibly stupid argument in many respects. If Theriot or Cedeno stinks it up they should be replaced as fast as possible.

probably not. am i the only one who is sick of hearing about ronny's "upside" without the caveat that he was horrendous for an entire year and is very unlikely to reach that upside? not nearly as sick as I am of hearing about how horrible Ronny is and how he can't hit ML pitching, without the caveat that he was 23 freaking years old. you say "23 freaking years old" like it's unheard of for a guy to come up at that age and perform well. i'd venture a guess that the average major leaguer breaks into the league around age 23. and i am still waiting for some examples of guys who have been truly horrible players for their entire first year of play, at age 22 through 24, and turned out to be above average major leaguers. Quick and dirty Rich Aurilla Michael Young.

Don't kill it. Let it die of natural causes. It can be the senile old uncle who wets his pants.

Because that's not a fair comparison? Whether you want to admit it or not, age is relevant to the discussion.

Granted, nothing is impossible, but it's improbable. It's also improbable for Cedeno to be as bad as Cedeno was in 2006. If either is that bad, there's plenty of chance to switch to the other after a month or two, but in a year where a game or two can be the difference between winning the division and missing the playoffs, it's not an absurd position to go with the safer bet. The safer bet for what?

Floor and ceiling talk is nonsensical. It's meaningless scoutspeak and has no place in a rational baseball discussion. If either one or both of those two are playing poorly they should be replaced. It doesn't matter if its .290 OBP vs. 270 OBP or whatever numbers one wants to use. Just because you say it doesn't, doesn't make it true. There is definite merit to compare a low-risk, low-reward player to a high-risk, high-reward player. If you know you are getting between a .320 OBP and a .340 OBP with one player, but the other player could give you between a .290 OBP and a .360 OBP, it's worth considering the safer player, especially if you can't afford the low-end production of the risky player. I'll accept that if you can assure me or anyone what the ranges will be. Because no one can know the future, talk of ceiling and floor is vacuous. It's what people say when they want to sound smart.

do you recall that the cubs went into the last weekend of 2007 without having the division locked up? we won 85 games and took the back door into the playoffs because milwaukee crapped the bed at the end of the year. they have a lot of good young players, and might be a few games better this year. losing a game or two because of poor personnel decisions could cost the cubs a spot in the playoffs. Floor and ceiling talk is nonsensical. It's meaningless scoutspeak and has no place in a rational baseball discussion. If either one or both of those two are playing poorly they should be replaced. It doesn't matter if its .290 OBP vs. 270 OBP or whatever numbers one wants to use.

I'll remind you that this path started when you suggested that Murton's demotion was a result of coincidence and not Hendry's decisions. I've never said Murton should prevent you from signing the premiere FA. Though it would be nice if that premiere FA were actually elite or at least great. When the premiere FA is wildly overpaid for what he brings to the table and his age, it's having a complimentary player like Murton at the same position that allows you to pass on him and better allocate your resources. Of course, you can only pass on him if you haven't spent the last 5 years making horrible decisions about how to build a baseball team. B/c if Hendry hadn't done that, we wouldn't need Soriano - or at least hopefully Hendry wouldn't think we needed him - and we'd have a lot more money to spend on a lot better players where we have no useful alternative (for the last several years, CF, SS, and C w/ the exception of Barret's few good/really good years, SP would be a good one this year). So we agree then: given where the Cubs were after the 2006 season, signing Soriano was the right move, even though it came at the expense of Matt Murton's shot at an everyday role on this team. And I maintain that the latter was indeed a coincidence and not a conscious choice to phase Murton out of the picture. Look the guy they needed most happens to play Murton's position. That's an unfortunate coincidence, because as you have said, Murton's a useful complimentary player. And I'll remind you that how the Cubs got to where they were after the 2006 season, and the decisions Hendry made that led them there, is a separate topic entirely. No, signing Soriano wasn't a good move. It will look even worse with each succeeding year until Soriano retires.

That's awesome!

Not for a championship-caliber team. I'm not going to go to the trouble of finding the stats because it's not worth my time, but that's just plain wrong.

That's a real interesting article. The question I have is does this type of analysis discount the idea that Pie will make progress if given more opportunities? I have several other questions too: Is a platoon good for a young/developing player like Pie? What are the opportunity costs for paying two players to do one job? What does this do for Pie's trade value? I guess it's good to have a guy like Johnson who can play multiple OF positions, but let's not forget he was just released by another team, a team with a semi-competent JM to boot. This discussion has been going around in several other threads, it's good to have one place to discuss it

That's possible and it's also possible that Theriot will work on his weaknesses and limit the holes. Exactly. The one of the real points for my original post is that we're stuck with Theriot. Instead of writing him off, is there a chance that he can be a positive? No, there isn't. There's a chance he might not hurt the team too bad, but that's the upside. That's exactly what I was going to write.

only if The Macarena and Mambo No. 5 are taken You took the words right out of my mouth. I know some of them have been jokes, but a lot of people (both here and in the comments of that blog) have had some horrific choices for closer songs. That would be Meatloaf. Are you suggesting this song. That would be great too.

I'm not sure who this is aimed at, but that's my policy as well. If someone tells me something is "take it or leave it" or a deal-breaker and I find out later it's not, their credibility is gone. I don't know if anyone has suggested Jim should have used a "take it or leave it" strategy. But someone suggested that the offer was made 3 months ago and has been sitting out there open this whole time and others (including me) think Jim's insane if that's what he did. You obviously haven't been reading the Roberts thread then. No one has answered why this is an "insane" strategy. And there are only two options Option 1: This is my offer it will be good for such and such a date. (the take it or leave it, man up option) Option 2: This is my offer, see if you can beat it and get back to me. (the "insane" option)

Hustle and fundamental adeptness are certainly desirable values in an athlete. I believe the issues arise when these characteristics are deemed "the right way" to play the game by the Old Guard. Stat oriented individuals gravitate towards events which have a quantifiable effect on winning ballgames. The establishments emphasis on playing the game "the right way" has very little measurable correlation to victories. I believe this is where the two sides often clash. Great first post!

Here guys....a quote from Bruce Almight's lastest column over at the herald. That's the reason why they signed Johnson, because of the "grit factor." Have fun guys. You should have your eyes checked, pronto!!!! I read it as Bruce making a joke about the grit, and how the Cubs want that, while pointing out that they also need his OBP. Thanks for getting it, Jersey. I think it's OK to inject a little humor now and then. Hey Bruce, any news on Roberts? Just kidding. BTW> I love your humor and the little jabs at the brain trust.

That would be absolutely awesome. This sound would be great too.

Dusty will pay no attention to what others are doing and do what he's always done. He's impervious to reason. He's probably the closest thing to what Joe Morgan would be like as a manager.

Yes, actually. There's a significant school of thought in negotiation theory that says the ONLY power in a negotiation comes from the willingness to walk away from the deal. When the original offer is not accepted and you demonstrate your willingness to walk away, you increase your power. By leaving it on the table, you are demonstrating your lack of desire to walk away and weaken your position. That's only the case where the two opponents are in an equal position. This is nothing like that case. I can see no way Hendry's position is weakened by saying this is what we have to offer, see if you can find a better one. when someone is making a high pressure pitch, most of the time the right thing to do is walk away. Okay... when you enter the negotiations from roughly equal bargaining position, that basically simply means that each party is equally willing to walk away. How else do you gain power in a negotiation? In a real sense that is exactly what Hendry has done (if he's done that). Here is what I have to offer. If you can beat it good for you, if not come and see me. It's his MO, give the best offer and see if they take it.

In what business school would such a useless strategy be taught? Only someone trying to sell something that is hot or who is desperate does such a thing. Ever read a book on negotiation theory? It would seem you haven't. I'd recommend "Getting to Yes" by a group of authors representing, iirc, Harvard. I've read plenty.

Yes, actually. There's a significant school of thought in negotiation theory that says the ONLY power in a negotiation comes from the willingness to walk away from the deal. When the original offer is not accepted and you demonstrate your willingness to walk away, you increase your power. By leaving it on the table, you are demonstrating your lack of desire to walk away and weaken your position. That's only the case where the two opponents are in an equal position. This is nothing like that case. I can see no way Hendry's position is weakened by saying this is what we have to offer, see if you can find a better one. when someone is making a high pressure pitch, most of the time the right thing to do is walk away.

Pie was never platooned in the minors, though. Nor do I think he was platooned early in his winter-league stints. So if his farm and winter stints so large and somewhat consistent splits, it may be harder to blame them on sample size or opportunity. I don't know how Pie's career will play out. He got a couple of hits versus LHP the other day, and my impression was that while he was bad versus LHP this winter league, he was actually even worse versus RHP. So maybe he's going to be fine or no worse versus lefties than versus righties. I don't know. But there are numerous LH hitters who don't hit LHP well, even when afforded extended opportunities. It's hardly "old school" ignorance to recognize that not-uncommon reality. Will Pie be one of them? I don't know. But it's certainly possible. And even if we knew right now that Pie was going to spend his career as an .850-OPS guy versus RHP but a .680-guy versus LHP, a guy who should rightfully play his career in a platoon if used right, I don't think that being "only" a platoon guy should mean we should trade him right now. A good lefty platoon player is very valuable. Pie's had a grand total of 58ABs againt LHP in MLB.