CubinNY

Why not Adam Dunn? Because he's a terrible baseball player? I really have no idea why his name is continually brought up. We really need a sticky thread with all the reason why Dunn is a good player so we don't have to have these converstations periodically.

They'd probalby want Pie + a young starter like Hill. I wouldn't do it. But if they wanted Pie + Marshall and some other quality arm from the farm I would do it. If the Cubs could talk them into taking Dempster or Ohman that would be better than one of the farm hands. I'd put Murton in RF

What CFer is avalable that is left handed and has power assuming Soriano is in RF? If the Cubs use Soriano is CF I'd like to see them go after Dunn if possible. To me it makes much more sense to put Soriano back at 2nd, but that isn't going to happen. The Cubs are put together like a Piccaso painting from his Cubist period. Piccaso was Cuban? Jones is a CF with power, or at least he could be. I can't imagine Lofton or Lugo playing any better defensively. I agree. I don't think they will find a left handed CF with more power than Jones.

What CFer is avalable that is left handed and has power assuming Soriano is in RF? If the Cubs use Soriano is CF I'd like to see them go after Dunn if possible. To me it makes much more sense to put Soriano back at 2nd, but that isn't going to happen. The Cubs are put together like a Piccaso painting from his Cubist period.

And why can't you do that just because you have a platoon? Seriously, you are making zero sense. I don't think I am being clear. There are a number of variables to consider. However, one cannot just use career splits to determine if a platoon will be effective. Using career splits assumes regular playing time. This is one case (perhaps the only case) where I agree with the conventional wisdom crowd. I cannot see how a straight platoon would be better than just having one guy who hits reasonably well against both lefites and righties. If a team has to use a platoon, I'd like to see the short end guy be pretty cheap, have a good power and good plate coverage at the very least. IMO, that rules out the vast majority of bench players becuase if the guy had all those things he would likely be starting. My thinking is that in a platoon situation it is axiomatic that one guy is going to be relativiely inefective for some portion of the time. For that portion of the time it really doesn't matter that he's on the bench at all unless he's going to hit for the pitcher. In which case I would assume that there is better option to use off the bench. I am not saying a bench player shouldn't ever start. I am not saying a team should never use a platoon. Necessity may dictate that they should. What I am saying is that why would a team like the Cubs, flush with cash, and with tradeable assets go into a seaon plan to use a platoon.

On XM radio from the Winter Meetings, Tom Verducci is ripping the Slappy signing. Ripping it to shreds. Everything we've all said.

Using an aburdity does not futher your positon. It only weakens it. A bench and platoon are not the same thing. The very idea of a platoon is that a player is going to be inefective for a certian portion of the season (N - 1/3 for a lefty and N - 2/3 for a righty). If one is in the game the other is not going to be effective. So having the inefective player on the bench is worthless. A bench is for scoring runs, primarily. Now, having two guys on the bench with some power that can hit either righty's or lefty's is a good idea.

So why didn't 8 for Soriano get same reaction? If we do it for Soriano please do it for Schmidt. He's a 33 yr old pitcher with a history of injuries, and we are a franchise with long history of injured picthers. Since 1997 Schmidt has made 25 or more starts in every season except 2000. He's been pretty durable. I agree with Tim. I don't think the Cubs want a 37 year old pitcher making 10 to 15 million dollars. If I were the Cubs and I really thought he'd be a difference maker I'd agree to take the money he'd make in the fourth year and amaterize it into a 3 year contract. More money, less years.

A platoon is not a weakness. A platoon is a necessity to counteract the weakness of individual players. A platoon is how you make the most of a less than ideal situation. This is like saying "studying hard is a weakness" if a student doesn't just immediately absord everything he is taught. It is a wekness becuase a team is paying two guy to play one positon.

I don't know, but if the Cubs trade JJ they will need to get a slugger or a high OBP guy for SS or CF. The angle I'm seeing is that they'll trade Jones for some pitching, then turnaround and sign Lofton and Trot Nixon (Mr. Miles' pick). Soriano will play RF, Lofton in CF and Nixon and Murton platoon in LF. That would be a terrible, terrible offensive team.

I don't know, but if the Cubs trade JJ they will need to get a slugger or a high OBP guy for SS or CF.

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.