CubinNY

Does this add anything to the discussion at all? I'm honestly just curious. It seems OBP was the end all be all last year...now when that stat doesn't support the argument its OPS+, or whatever stat happens to support and/or detract from the player/s in question. I don't think anyone was arguing that if Tavarez was hypothetically brought here that it would be for his prowess to drive in runs, so I was just curious why OPS+ was the measure which was being used to detract from him. I don't care anymore...I may just go back to arguing the relative merits of Freddy Bynum and Craig Counsell from a few weeks back, it seems just about as relevant at this discussion I think you have a point, kind of. With some guys OBP is more important than SLG (i.e., high order hitters), with OPS = OBP + SLG. OPS+ is just adjusted for the ball park. IMO the park effects can be exagerated and tend to flucuate from year to year. In other words, I'm not sold OPS+ as a predictive stat. I think OPS is just fine to use in many cases. Nevertheless, in order for the Cubs to score runs they need either SLG or OBP and preferably both. A high OPS can be affected by ridicilous SLG and low OBP or vice versa. In either case Tavares provides little.

Three or four wins?

I agree. Might be a long shot, but it would be nice knowing that the AGM reads nsbb regularly. Just imagine if they hired someone from NSBB. The Cubs payroll would be 300 Million in the off seasaon. Then when they don't win everygame, the Cubs would trade every high dollar player and call up AAA guys because we need to see what the kids can do. :D And the Cubs would have a 50-man roster because they'd sign everybody whom everybody here likes. :D Either that or we'd be calling for the person's immediate firing

Yeah, we fixed that problem. :D Okay, back on topic. Going back to my post where I quoted all the Rotoworld excepts on Ryan Church since December, what would be a fair offer for Ryan Church, and is he worth what it would cost? And finally, will Washington continue playing hardball, or will their demands come down the longer he isn't traded. (Using what Bruce Miles has heard through the grapevine as gospel that they are asking for the moon). I don't blame the Nats GM for asking for the "moon", you never know what you might get. The question is: is he willing to deal? My guess is yes, but after all the FAs have signed. At this point if I'm Hendry, I'd try to make nice with JJ. He's the best option.

No it's not. It's in the context of three consecutive posts where he disagreed with/criticized three other posters(me being one of them). I disagree, but I'm not continuing this pointless series any longer. I guess it's no longer scary quiet.

Am I totally misunderstanding you quote below? Ah, finally some sanity. Nope - and I fleshed out my opinion rather than just leaving it at that. I still don't see what the problem is. People criticize each other all over the place here, and yet you have seen fit to accuse me of being judgmental. "ah finally some sanity" is commentary of the entire borad. We're all insane to want the Cubs to get good players. And we're all irrational when we don't get the players we want. Everyone, all the time.

Ah, finally some sanity. That's ridicilous If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here? You are really overreacting to my post and completely missing the point. My point is that I appreciate measured criticism based in fact (like stats) rather than pure speculation such as, "That Hendry stinks because he didn't trade for Chruch. I know they were only asking for (names of players)". I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!" EDIT: For example, many of us (myself included) took shots at Hendry for the contracts he gave to DeRosa and Lilly. I don't have a problem with that. What bothers me is when people slam Hendry for things he cannot control, such as the fact Schmidt apparently preferred to sign on the Coast in spite of the fact that the Cubs offerred him more money and an extra year. Nothing he can do about that, IMO. EDIT No. 2: Please show me where I referred to anyone here as "unknowledgeable". I don't get why the criticism has to be so limited in scope. Getting the job done in the big picture requires getting the job done on specific moves. Under your rules, we can't complain that Hendry went after guys like Perez, Rusch, Burnitz, Jones etc instead of getting a player like Vlad, Tejada or Beltran when they were available. Why can't people just let fans react how they want to the ineptitude of Cubs management? You just completely misstated my position, which is that it is very reasonable to kill Hendry for signing guys like Burnitz, Jones, Rusch, neifi, macias, etc. rather than Vlad and Miggy, simply b/c that is something that actually happened. What I don't like is when people say its Hendry's fault that we can't acquire a guy like Church; these people don't understand Bruce's point, which is that "it takes two to tango". I agree that getting the job done means getting the job done both with specificity and in the "big picture". I don't think I am stating rules and I don't think I am creating some unworkable standard or one that does not subject Hendry to crticisim. Rather, I dislike arguments based on pure speculation and without any ("any" meaning "none", "nada, "zip") basis in reality. People can fire away at Hendry in any way they choose, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. As I understand it, I am free to feel that way. When Jason Shmidt signed with LA I didn't read very many posts where people were complaining that Hendry didn't get the job done. Some of the criticism of Hendry is over the top and irrelevent (fat jokes). But, overall I think most of the criticism is based on what he has or hasn't done in relation to what the person wanted him to do. Last year he didn't seem to be interested in Giles at all, and stated that he "wasn't interested in getting into a bidding war". Well there was no such war. I and some others criticized Hendry for not pursing Giles. There were some people who accused us of being unrealistic as "Giles wasn't leaving the West Coast". I think you were among them. In reality we'll never know because Hendry didn't seriously pursue Giles. This year we've seen that when Hendry wants his man he can get him. Even if he doesn't fit what the Cubs need.

Really? I see it as close to 100% that Pie will suck offensively. How will that increase his trade value----when he's posting .280 OBPs and whiffing more than once per game? I don't get it. I don't see how you can see it as close to 100% that he'll suck. If Pie played regurlarly in the bigs next season I would put the over/under at .260 / .315 / .425 for his stat line. No real formula, just my best guess. I don't think that's entirely unrealistic. Do you think that qualifies under "sucking offensively"? I wouldn't, which is why I doubted the absolute declaration he'd be terrible. I think there's a very small chance he'd be good, but also a sizable probability that he won't be terrible. If he's not terrible but also not "good" how will this help the Cubs? What I mean is that they are going to need good production from at least one position from either CF, SS, or 2nd base. I'd rather the City of Chicago gives JJ the keys to the city or something. Or perhaps a big bouquet of roses with a card saying "we're sorry". In other words, I think at this point he is the Cubs best option.

Funny. I nominate goony's evil twin. Now that would be funny.

Ah, finally some sanity. That's ridicilous If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

Just in that group, you have 4 pitchers that missed sign. amounts of time due to injuries. It is too dependent on the health of pitchers always being injury free. But isn't that a problem regardless of the set up? Anyway, I suppose one could argue that less pitches per start would equal less injuries. The question seems to be would this be the case? I would love to see this type of thing tried at higher levels in the minors. It would be an interesting experiment. It could be as revolutionary as the five man rotation and closer. Baseball is fighting a never ending battle against history.

I'm not convinced the Cubs have a CF target. This is perhaps the most ridicilous offseason of the Hendry era. They may just rush Pie.

This kind of stuff happens far too often. For conspiracy theory nuts only: When I lived in Columubs OH I use to work out at this gym. The guy who worked there was huge. Becuase I generally worked out around 10:30 am there weren't a lot of people at the gym and I kind of got to know him, but he scared me too much to call him a friend. He use to spot me and we worked out together. He was a bookie, an enforcer, and a drug dealer, mostly steriods. People would come by and give him money all the time and he disappear to his car. Anyway, he told me that there are a lot of guys in big time college and pro sports who are beholden to organized crime. The mobsters get tips about injuries, game plans, and such and pay the player or more often forgive gambling debts. They rarely ask guys to throw games becuase it is almost always too obvious. When/if a guy decides not to play ball with the mobster any number of things can happen including a police tip about drugs, a rape charge, DUI arrest and such. They know the player's lifestyle and habits and use their own behavior against them. Not saying it's true, just interesting

Where do you come up with this stuff? I agree with him. You can't just go to a 4 man rotation b/c it makes statistical sense. If we brought guys up through the minors using a 4 man rotation, the mental approach and physical approach (limiting pitch counts, getting your body adjusted to the different strain and healing processes) would be different. Expecting to take a crowd of guys raised on the 5 man rotation to go to a 4 man rotation and put up similar numbers and avoid injury is silly. I'd be all for going to the 4 man rotation in the minors and raising the next gen of pitchers on it, but converting current ML pitchers to the 4 man is just asking for injuries. Except in the playoffs when it really counts. BTW: I'm not supporting a 4 man rotation. My question had nothing to do with a 4 man rotation. It has to do with the bolded above.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

I was one of them. And I'd still rather have Cedeno than Furcal. But I'd rather have Furcal than Cesear, so now I wish they'd got the contract done. It would also mean they wouldn't have signed Soriano and maybe have gone after Drew. It's the freaking butterfly effect. :spin: If you still want Cedeno rather than Furcal, and you want Furcal rather than Ceasar, does that mean you want Cedeno starting at SS in 2007? Not necessarily. I was thinking about cost and production. Furcal is obviously the best player of the three. I still think Hendry would have picked up Slappy though. The Cubs had no viable alternative at CF after Patterson was traded for two sticks of bubble gum. We just have to hope Izturis has a break out year, just like last year we had to hope Cedeno would carry his good winter league numbers into the season. The Cubs are dependent on "hope" more than other team I can think of.

What does CHONE stand for and how are the predictions calculated?

I was one of them. And I'd still rather have Cedeno than Furcal. But I'd rather have Furcal than Cesear, so now I wish they'd got the contract done. It would also mean they wouldn't have signed Soriano and maybe have gone after Drew. It's the freaking butterfly effect. :spin:

I'm against using Rusch, but I really like the idea of tandem starters. And I don't think agents would mind so much if it were sold correctly. Z would be throwing fewer pitches per game, obviously, but he would be getting more innings per year, giving him a chance to increase strikeout numbers and some other counting stats. I like the idea too. However, there are other costs as well, mostly unimportant in the grand scheme, No wins for the guy who pitched first/second so no Cy Youngs, a team would also have to probably carry more pitchers which might limit bench options. There are probably a few more, but I'm not interested enough to continue.

Why exactly is Hendry so enamored with him? That's what I don't understand. Izturis is just another in a long line of slick fielding/no hit SS's who come and go in this league, and are soon forgotten. Hendry likes him because he likes that long line of slick field SS. He has acquired about 30% of those that have been in baseball at one point or another during his regime. His love for Izturis is because of his defensive reputation and the fact that he doesn't strike out. Hendry values the ability to make outs when putting the ball in play. Over 162 games, Izturis will probably strike out less than 75 times. That's not Juan Pierre, or even Ichiro, but it's low. It's lower than guys like Royce Clayton. Hendry is also the type of guy that will judge a player on what he has done at his peak, and just assume that's what he'll do as a Cub. And at his peak Izturis hit a lot of singles and had an acceptable average. Izturis is only 26 years old. Is it really that bad to assume he can reach prior peaks, and possibly surpass them? (note: asking this question doesn't make me an Izturis lover or Hendry defender...in fact you could simply replace Izturis with any other 26 year old hitter and apply the same question) This is a good post. To be fair, I got a lot of e-mails after the December 2002 trade of Hundley to the Dodgers for Grudz and Karros. Most people said Grudz sucked, he was past his peak performance and it was downhill from there. Well, ol' Grudz has done pretty well for hisself. He's not a great player, but he proved a lot of his detractors wrong. Izturis is their guy. We'll see what he can do healthy. No disrespect to Bruce, But Grudz worst season in the majors is pretty damn close to Izturis' best. Izturis has had 5 full seasons in the majors and only managed to a respectable OBP once (.330). He's a black hole in the line up. IMO, Hendry subscribeds to outdated theories born in the dead ball era of the 1970s and 80s. The chief of which is that the SS is there only for his defense. It stinks, but I knew when Hendry traded Maddux for him he'd be the Cubs guy for the forseable future.

wow. how can pagan be said to have "done his time" in the minors yet still be considered an unknown? he had 2500 mediocre at best minor league ab's...i think it was pretty clear what he brought to the table (not much). Pagan spent 6 years in the minors. That's "doing your time." He never made it to the show, meaning it was an unknown how he'd perform at the ML level. That's all I meant by calling him an "unknown." actually a guy's minor league numbers can be a pretty good indicator of what type of major league player he'll be. he was quite "known". and what a surprise...pagan's big league numbers were right in line with his career minor league numbers...terrible. Yes, they can be a pretty good indicator, but they're not the ultimate say on what a player will do. Minor league do not always translate. Would you like me to list the myriad examples of this? There are tons of players who can rip apart the minors but can't get it done in the majors. Likewise there are some players that aren't world burners in the minors who can contribute at the ML level. Pagan is one of those, IMO. Sorry I don't have a stat to show that. I tend to agree with you. Here's two recent guys with awesome minor league numbers but can't hit major league pitching-DuBois and Restovich. Great fastball hitters, but the old curve kills them. And exactly how does this support his argument? Pagan had crappy numbers in the minors. Are people supposed to think he's going to be even a decent bench player becuase some players who have good numbers in the minors don't in the majors when he's had bad numbers in the minors too? It doesn't logically follow. The Cubs bought his contract for like $10,000 from the Mets.

Yes, with the pitchers jogging in the outfield, the manager signing autographs, and 1/2 the ball club there I could see how the pressure could get to a kid. Every game I've evered played whether it be a playoff game or beer league softball I've tried my damnedest. I really don't think guys who've played the game their entire life and are getting paid are any different.

I'm still pretty pissed off that they stayed with Hawkins even though he just sucked as a closer. That team had one hell of a rotation and Prior was really coming on at the end of the year. Thanks Latroy/Dusty. In 2004 I was at two of the memorable Hawkins's efforts. Eric' Milton's near no-hitter, then near loss after Patterson roped a double. LaTroy loses it in the bottom of the 9th. The final week in Shea when Victor Diaz went deep. Both times Prior started the game and pitched very well.

Hendry subcribes to the "earn it" policy. Some guys don't get it done in ST, others step up. Pagan stepped it up bigtime. If what you say is true, Hendry is a worse GM than anybody realizes. Spring training is about the absolute worst time to be making decision about your 25 man roster. A great amount of the time teams are playing people who won't even make the 25 man roster and might never make it for even a cup of coffee in MLB, not to mention the limited number of ABs in the six weeks of get in shape, golf after the game, don't go on road trips, split squads, get in to get some work done baseball. Shoot, I've already mentioned some of the myraid problems with evaluating talent during ST. One last thing, if what you say is true Brandon Sing should have been on the 25 man roster out of spring trainging last year. And the year before "Die Hard" what's his name should have been on the 25 man roster.

The Mets version of Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell, or Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz. Doyle Alexander helped Detriot get to the 84 WS and win it. I'd say that wasn't such a bad trade for Detriot. If Kazmir get healthy, and reaches even some of his potential the Kazmir for V. Zambrano trade has to be one of the worst trades in recent memory. I have no idea what the Mets were thinking.