CubinNY

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life. I think this is a horribly misguided and wrong way of thinking that will never lead to any long-term success in any avenue of life. EDIT - and it's the exact same type of thinking that leads to Jim Hendry trying to somehow copy the latest lightning in a bottle team every year. No the Cubs are a bona fide example of process over product, unless I am reading your "they should've won" supposition incorrectly. Forget the Cubs. That's a separate argument. Process is more meaningful than outcome. Period. Variance can impact a single outcome. Sound process is the only way to ensure long term success in anything. I'll use a poker (Hold 'em) analogy. If you have pocket aces, and somebody acting before you goes all in, you call. 100 times out of 100, the correct play is to call. Now, say the other guy flips over 6 3 offsuit. The board winds up being 4 5 7 9 Q and he wins this hand with 6 3 offsuit. This doesn't mean that calling with AA was the incorrect play. It means that the best hand didn't hold up. Long term, you will win far more often than not when you make this same play. The outcome of the hand (a loss) means nothing (other than the fact that you lost some money in the short run). The math says that you made the correct play, and that is all that matters. Now apply that to baseball. If team A is better constructed than team B but, due to variance, winds up winning fewer games than team B in a given season, that does not mean that team B was the better team. In terms of GMing a team, what matters is how the team is put together, not necessarily how that team winds up performing. If my team were looking at two candidates for GM, one who has sound baseball philosophies but, for whatever reason, has an under .500 record, and one who has a .600 record, but has flawed philosophies, I would take the former every single time. I liken this to a bad pitcher with a good W-L record vs. a good pitcher with a bad W-L record. There's a far better chance that the good philosophies will lead to future success than the naked bottom-line success. Obviously, I'm talking extreme ends of the spectrum here, but it does a good job of illustrating the point. I'm not sure what universe you live in but unless we are talking about college football, beauty contests, and figure skating the better team is the one who won. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we live in a universe in which cause and effect do not exist.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.I think there's about a million counter examples to this. I guess you're a really, really big fan of cheating. And I can probably think of about a million counter examples to your examples. Cheating as a process invalidates any outcome unless you are suggesting that there are no inherent rules by which we people agree to abide. Criminal go to jail, most of the time. The better team wins, most of the time.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life. I think this is a horribly misguided and wrong way of thinking that will never lead to any long-term success in any avenue of life. EDIT - and it's the exact same type of thinking that leads to Jim Hendry trying to somehow copy the latest lightning in a bottle team every year. No the Cubs are a bona fide example of process over product, unless I am reading your "they should've won" supposition incorrectly.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

Here is what I think, the playoffs are a crapshoot. However, a team that wins close to 100 games a year has a better shot at winning the playoffs than a team that wins close to 90 games. I think the statistics bear that out. Sighting Pyth. records in this case is really, really, really, not very smart for the simple fact that to the extent that a team like the D-Backs exceed their pyth. record, the model is not a good predictor. People who don't really know much about science or statistics say that the results are due to luck, but when the model is off by that large of an amount the chances that it was luck are reduced significantly. Remember one fits the model to reality and not the other way around. Reality is never wrong and the usefulness of the model is its convergence wtih what actually happens. For example when a hurricane goes off in a directon that is not predicted by a model, the model is discarded as not usefull. Most of the time the pyth. model is a good predictor, but sometimes it is not. The answer to your question about the Mets is quite obvious, no the Mets weren't becuase they didn't make the playoffs and only won 88 games.

This is ridiculous. You can't make these determinations in hindsight. Even if you want to go the hindsight route, then how was the 2003 (mediocre as it was) team not a contender? It was 5 freaking outs from the big dance. You can't have it both ways. Personally, I look at the 2003 team as a non-serious contender that got lucky. The 2004 team was a serious contender that was unlucky with injuries and poorly managed. What is ridiculous is to judge a team by the names on the back of the Jersey and statistics that have little usefulness outside of a theoritical model used to predict wins. I judge a team by their actual wins over the course of a season. Not one of the teams the Cubs have fielded in recent history has won 90 games. None of those teams were in the World Series and only the 2003 teams managed to get past the Wild Card round in a crapshoot playoffs.

But the numbers show that it was a shock that they finished with 89 wins. Their pythag shows that they should have won 94 games that year. Who knows how differently it would have been if they didn't go 1-5 in their last 6 games. Not to say that you can't count that, but if someone had told you after game 156 that the Cubs wouldnt win 90 games with 6 more against the bad Reds and the already clinched Braves, you would believe them? I think it was very surprising that they didnt win 93-94 wins. Obviously they had some major fundamental problems, but I don't think many expected them to win under 90 games after getting Lee, Walker, Maddux, and later Nomar and Dempster to add to a team that won 88 games the year before. It doesn't matter what people expected to happen, or what their pyth. record was. They finished 3rd. Winning is what matters. The only constant besides a handful of players is Jim Hendry. And he is the very definition of mediocre, as are the Cubs. But if it makes you happy to believe that the Cubs were victims of bad luck or what have you, go right ahead. I will say this, no amount of luck explains why the Cubs haven't fielded one or two championship calibur teams in most of our lifetimes.

Is this a joke? Drew maybe a weirdo but he's a career 128 OPS+ hitter and still relatively young. To compare Drew to Floyd at the stages in their careers is really foolish.

While I understand and mostly agree with you point........It sure sould suck ti have Arod and Crawford wouldnt it? :lol: I'd cream if they got both, but judging from the PR story by Muscat and Hendry's quotes about Theriot being an "everyday guy" I tend to think ARod won't be in the Cubs plans. Crawford, I'd love but I don't know if Hill + is a good deal.

I think TB would want Hill + more young pitching for Carl. I guess it depends on if they can sign/trade for a legit #2 or #3 pitcher. I know Lou loves Crawford. That's the thing with Hendry. He seems to morph himself into a GM based on who he hires as a manager instad of having an overriding philosophy and finding people who fit into that philosophy.

Didn't ARod have the same PR problems when he was a Free Agent the first time? I remember some really weird clauses in his contract that made him look kind of foolish when he signed with Texas. I'd think it's worse, now, don't you think? Yes, by far. I am curious on how much of this is a NY Press thing. They could over blow grass growing. They are. I read a column in the NYT yesterday intimating that A-Rod really wants to return to the Yankees, becuase, well, they are the Yankees. The NY sports writers know no level of humility. I don't think it is as bad as the media are portrayiing it. Also Boras is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, playing bad cop. I think A-Rod will get what he wants, @ 260million over five or six years.

According to Bruce there aren't any posting fees b/c they are free agents.

No, neither am I. I think people like his name more than anything else. He's coming of an injury too.

You must of forgot about 2003, 2004, and 2007. Sure they didn't get it done, but even this year many of the so called experts thought they would do well once they made the playoffs. I don't necessarily like him but this is the first time that I can remember being a Cub fan and realistically expecting them to go to the playoffs on a semi yearly basis. No I didn't forget, they weren't serious contenders in any of those years. But I guess, it's don't worry be happy!

I realize the Sox didn't exactly get what they were hoping for, in terms of power production, out of Drew. But they won the WS with him and his .373 OBP in the lineup. Like last year, I think Drew would be a great fit for the Cubs (esp if he could play CF) - I wanted him more than Soriano. But I don't see the Sox eager to deal that OBP for Jones and Marquis. Maybe they take Murton for him, but I'm not really sure I'd want to do that deal (why add all the extra salary for the same OPS, even if Drew is "proven") and I don't know that Theo is going to want to either. What's the benefit to the Sox of having Jones and his 5 HR and .335 OBP replace JD Drew? The Cubs might as well trade Murton for a player that they will play, becuase they don't seem to want to play him. JD Drew is exactly what the Cubs need. However, I see little reason why Boston would trade him and I think he also has a NTC (but I'm not sure).

Welcome! There is an entire section called "transactions" that will tell you what many people think. I think Hendry will do the wrong things, whatever they are.

At least we can be rest assured that Jimbo won't go after A-Rod because Theriot played well enough to be an "everyday" guy. He'll be looking for a LH RF with power. Every year it is some new twist on stupidity with that guy. good clubhouse guys guys who can catch a leadoff hitter The middle reliever who came off of a career year The guy with the highest OPS among people with less than a .250 average and who strike out over 100 times a year The Cubs will never be a serious contender as long as he is the GM.

Was Texas even considered a player then? I remember the Mets as being the leaders but the details are fuzzy regarding the other "leading" teams. I actually think it would work best for a team that has a really low payroll. Florida has been raking in the profit sharing dough for a few years. I think they should seriously consider giving ARod the money to bring their payroll from $20-50m, still low. Trade Dontrelle and Miggy, and that should bring in 3-5 solid major leaguers. I really don't see ARod bringing in added revenue to a team like LA or LAA. But a team like Florida might actually benefit financially. Texas didn't falter because of ARod's contract. They struggled because they were paying big bucks to old and crappy players, like Juan Gone and Chan Ho. If a team avoids the mega millions busts, they can deal with ARod's contract. Do you honestly think that ARod wants to go to florida? Isn't that where he lives in the off-season? Yes, and he grew up in Miami. He's already a hometown hero.

Was Texas even considered a player then? I remember the Mets as being the leaders but the details are fuzzy regarding the other "leading" teams. I actually think it would work best for a team that has a really low payroll. Florida has been raking in the profit sharing dough for a few years. I think they should seriously consider giving ARod the money to bring their payroll from $20-50m, still low. Trade Dontrelle and Miggy, and that should bring in 3-5 solid major leaguers. I really don't see ARod bringing in added revenue to a team like LA or LAA. But a team like Florida might actually benefit financially. That is a good point. Loria is taking a lot of heat. Bringing ARod aboard would go a long way toward landing a stadium deal. They could also get some good young pitching for Miggy and Dontrelle. Binefest is a good GM but is working with a world class douche in Loria and his son in-law.

Because mortgage interest is tax deductible and you can invest the rest making higher returns than the 6% mortgage rate. Fair enough. How unique is the name "Alex Rodriguez"? I don't know any other ARods. It's gotta be him. What if he's going to be playing for the White Sox? I am so bad at this stuff. First, I didn't think ARod was serious about opting out of his contract. But since he has, I don't think there is any way he signs with the Mets. He'll just trade one headache for another. If it were me I'd get out of the AL entirely. That way he'd never have to visit Yankee stadium until inter-league/All-Star/World Series games. I think there is a good possibility he ends up with the Dodgers. Now watch him end up with the Mets.

Nook should be his new nickname. I wonder if he will be wearing women's underwear and breathing out of his eyelids too? And remember to throw punches with his glove hand?

Because it is about the money. But so what? that's what they play for. ARod/Boras are floating a 262 million dollar number around. That is EXACTLY twice as much as the higest paid athlete in sports. According to Keith Olberman.

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playernews.aspx?sport=MLB I would think that the trade would effectively put them out of the A-Rod sweapstakes, if they were ever in it to begin with. Watch out of Detriot next year.

Wouldn't that be tampering?

Just out of curiosity, how come...is it so they can't go after any other FA's? He's a player in decline and I don't think he'll stick at SS (maybe fore 1 year). Going forward which do you think is more likely - 06 or 07 ARod? In decline? Huh? He just had the best year of his 14 year career. ARod is quite simply not even close to a player that is in decline. A player in his mid 30's is in decline. He also has a higher probability of injury and collapse. Don't' get me wrong, ARod is awesome but 8/30 is a major commitment. ARod is not in his mid 30s. He's 31. If he does he'll be 39 at the end. Five is more like it with some options. Boras/ARod might be greedy but he/they are not stupid.