CubinNY

Didn't the Cardinals more or less use a platoon? The Mets went into the season with a plan to platoon both corner OF spots, and ended up adding 2B to the mix. The Dodgers basically platooned a couple positions throughout the season. Very few teams have 8 guys plan the vast majority of the games at their position, AL or NL. Your stance on this issue makes less and less sense the more I read it. I just don't get it. A platoon is a weakness. The fact that this team or that team uses one is irrelevent. Sometimes the weakness can be overcome becuase of the overall strength of the team. Nevertheless, a platoon makes more sense in the AL becuase a team doesn't use it's bench as often. However, a platoon is better than just playing a crappy player in certian situations. But why would a team want to plan for that situation? What I mean is, why would the Cubs get JJ and pay him the amount of money they have if to be a part time player. Now that doesn't make sense.

This is why they either have to ALL have conference championship game or none have them. If Wisconson gets a chance against OSU in a title game and beat them then it's Florida vs Wisconson. Florida has no business playing in this game.

Right. Ideally a team would stack its lineup with guys who hit well against both lefties and righties, but that's almost impossible in reality. Also, I've seen a few posters mention that platooning is something that is only practiced by weaker teams or low-payroll teams, but that's far from the truth. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays, for example, all used platoons at some point during 2006. The Yankees platooned Bernie Williams and Aaron Guiel before they got Abreu. The Red Sox platooned Trot Nixon. The Blue Jays platooned Reed Johnson and Frank Catalanotto before Johnson proved himself worthy of facing lefties and righties. The Jays also platooned Alex Rios and Eric Hinske for a while. Funny that you mention the AL teams. A platoon makes much more sense in the AL with the DH.

This qote worries me. Hendry has acquired one bat and is going to play him out of position, that's it. The Cubs are not a good team right now.

I worry how Zito would perform in the small parks in the NL Central.

Tressel abstained from voting. BRILLIANT move to not give the No. 2 team bulletin board material in the event it wouldn't have been the No. 2 team Tressel voted for. Ingenious really. he's a brilliant coach. the idea of Tressel at a school that gets the talent OSU does is a scary proposition. they'll be in the running for the NC almoste every year for years to come. I agree. He'd already won two national championships at Youngstown State before comming to Columbus. My hope was that he would clean up the system at OSU too, but that is just too big a job for one I guess. I could see him leaving for the NFL at some point in time.

Then they're bad businessmen. The LA times is a horrible business opportunity as a stand alone product. There is little growth potential in print media.

Brilliant! I really cannot believe he still has a job.

The impression I got from that bit was that he would only buy the Cubs from whoever bought the entire Tribune Co. Smart decision on his part to look into that option, since it seems the Tribune will be sold as one big chunk. So look for Cuban to attempt to buy the Cubs from whoever buys the whole Trib Co. The problem with that idea is that the Cubs are the only asset that generates significanlty more income than it costs to prodiuce the product. That's why the Tribune Company wants to sell the Cubs with the Trib. It's like making a team take a bad contract for getting a good player. The team will not sell the good player without the other team taking back the bad contract. I cannot see whomever buys the trib selling the Cubs. They are a cash cow. The rest is just a loss leader. It's Walmart 101.

Exactly. The only thing standing in the way is money. D IA is the only division that doesn't have a playoff in football. There has to be a way to make a playoff lucritive enough to change the sytem.

If the Cubs got Bonds and won it all. I'd feel like I sold my soul to the devil to get a WS. It's would be like Damn Yankees in real life.

I can only answer to one of those, but I'd say Yes. ;) Indeed. But I don't want Hendry to spend unwisely. It may be too late with Fonzie already here.

I heard somebody talk about a play in game. Let Florida play Michigan and see who plays OSU. What about other one loss teams?

Anyone who read the thread knows my positon. A platoon is a necessary evil for a mid to low payroll team. A platoon is an inefficient use of scarce resources both in terms of dollars and 25 man roster spots unless: A) the short end player is cheap B) The team is in the AL The definiton of a platoon is that one player is not good for some portion of the time. It's fine to have bench players that can hit from either the left or right side of the plate e.g., a lefty on the bench with power. My position is not finite, I can be pursuaded, but there are oppotunity costs involved.

Ok, it's late and I've had a few pops but my logic looks like this: If the Cubs cannot sign Shmidt or Lilly. Heck, even if they sign Lilly, they will probably need someone better to get them over the top, so to speak, to the playoffs. If the Cubs are in the mix in June who may be available? I'm thinking both position wise (2nd, CF, and SS) and starting pitching. Would Hendry be smart not to spend all the loot and wait to see who is available to put the team in a position to win it all? I'm thinking yes as I look out and see who is availabe now. Am I drunk and looking too far in the future?

Let chaos reign! Let it reign!

Actually, the loss should prevent them from going to a BCS bowl, but it won't.

Hahahahahahaha! Go UCLA! Now Florida has to win and chaos will reign!!!! Take that BCS

Either USC isn't as good as they looked in the ND game or ND wasn't as good as they looked in the UCLA game. If USC wins, they will get destroyed by OSU. Go UCLA and Go Florida!

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less. Last year Nixon made $7.5 JJ makes $6 million Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million you're making it sound like the guy not starting that day doesn't get to dress for the game. He might as well not dress if he isn't valuable. There are many games when I wish Neifi didn't dress. Suppose you have the guy on the bench who cannot hit righties. The other team puts in a lefty pitcher. The guy gets up and they take out the lefty.

If a team has two guys for one postion it is ineficient based on a 25 man roster. I suppose, if the guy on the short end could play other positons that would be ok. However, he is still only valuable N -2/3 of the time becuase of his poor splits. If the palyer is inexpensive the differnce is less. Last year Nixon made $7.5 JJ makes $6 million Last year Craig Wilson made $3.3 million

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year? The opportunity costs: The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better You have one less player to use on your bench How do you propose to get "people on board"? Assuming the guy is good enough to be worth platooning, odds are you aren't going to be finding many better bench players. With people like Nixon, who hasn't been a full-time player in several years, it should be pretty easy to convince him to participate in such a situation. Guys like Jones, who play most games but stink against one type of pitcher would probably put up a fight. But that's what managers are for, to do what's best for the team. You don't have one less player to use on your bench. It's not like the guy who is not starting that day is ineligible to play. The first couple times through the lineup he's going to be facing the same pitcher, and you don't even have to think about pinch hitting. In many games I wouldn't even sub-in the platoon if they bring in a new pitcher. It doesn't have to be, and really, it can never be, a 100% strict platoon. But it doesn't have to be much of a problem either. I understand. I think it is a philosophical disagreement about personnel use. I can see a platoon if you have an iexpensive player on the short end of the platoon situation or if you are small market team, or even in the AL. My belief is that if the Cubs need to platoon Jones then they have a problem. However, in the case of Nixon he would platooning with Murton and not Jones. I'm not against getting Nixon for a 4th OFer and the first guy off the bench, depending on how much he'd cost.

It is meaningless to pay two guys to play one postion and to pay one guy to sit on the bench @100 games a year? The opportunity costs: The platoon player is taking a roster spot that could otherwise be filled by someone better You have one less player to use on your bench How do you propose to get "people on board"?

That doesn't make any sense. Why? This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned. I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place. If I'm better at putting and you are better at driving, then wouldnt it stand to reason that we would combine for a better scramble score than if we played separately? Yes, but this is baseball we are talking about and not golf. Why would a team try and use a platoon if they didn't have too? Especially a team with a top five payroll? There are only 25 roster spots. One guy is going to play 70 to 80% of the time and the guy who can't hit righties is almost usless.

That doesn't make any sense. Why? This isn't fantasy baseball. All things being equal platoons are a sign of weakness. You are paying two guys to play one position, not to mention most players don't like being platooned. I understand the logic, but in this instance you cannot just use the numbers to justify a platoon. There are opportunity cost problems all over the place.