CubinNY

I want to say sometime Monday... For some reason I so want the Cubs to get this guy. He seems like a can't miss, but I don't really care. I just want them to win something, a bidding war, checkers, anything. I am fired up.

OK. I found it in Raisin's post. Now my question, How come the Red Sox, Yankees, and Twins have such good drafts and have good records. Maybe the question is dumb, but what are the Red Sox, Yankees, and Twins know that the Cubs don't?

Having the guy on the roster in the first place is an issue with the GM. How to use him if he is there is an issue with the manager. Chances are if you have a guy that is good with the glove and can also hit, he probably should be starting. Which is why making a late inning defensive replacement is not a good idea.

That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup. I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon. Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used. But let's take this to its logical conclusion. If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy. Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea. So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit.

That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup. I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon.

That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. The odds? Depends on who's coming up that inning. If you have a left-handed hitter that likes to pull the ball, I'd say the odds are decent that a ball could get hit to first. Chances are Doug Mietkiewicz shouldn't be on the team in the first place, which somewhat makes all of this moot. But if he is there, it certainly makes sense to use him in that situation. Yes but what are the odds that someone like Neifi Perez or Doug M. makes a play that Todd Walker or Ortiz wouldn't? The second scenirao I put up there is much more likely to occur than the first.

That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea.

That's not what's being discussed at all. What the discussion is: "If you've got a 1 run lead in the 9th and Barry Bonds playing LF, is there any logical reason to remove him and put So Taguchi out there?" What the discussion is NOT: "Is there any logical reason to have So Taguchi on your roster?" Two completely independent questions altogether. When the discussion started, it was much more about the latter. Yes. Sorry for derailing the merits of obtaining the flashy Chone Figgons discussion. I think you nailed it on page whatever. The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

What teams had the best draft according to BA. I thought I read somewhere it was Boston, NY, and Oakland.

Yes. He is now the manager of the Giants.

That Louisville WVU score tells me that neither team can handle the big boys. No defense.

Not true - on both counts. I'm just going by what on your avatar. And it is true.

I agree. People are being way too anal about that comparison and missing goony's very valid point because of it. There's nothing anal about it. There's a huge difference. The insurance that Aramis had makes him unlikely to sign another contract unless Hendry just felt like giving money away. You only sign another deal if it's better than what you have (more money and years). Ramirez had over 30MM coming his way and DLee had nothing guaranteed. You think Hendry was going to offer him more than 3/33M he had left at that point (not to mention the option tacked on at the end)? Get real. BTW, I don't remember having heard or read of anyone saying we should get Ramirez to sign another contract pre-empting the use of that opt out clause. NO ONE. 20/20 hindsight is great. I do remember loads of people complaining about that opt out clause. People saw what was coming. Aramis would play his 2 years, opt for FA if he played well, and get more money. The only way he stays with us for the life of that contract is if he underperforms. Crappy contract for the Cubs. Great for Ramirez. you've only been on this site since Aug 21st. People were talking about it at this time last year.

You clearly don't understand what comparable means. It does not mean exactly the same. I brought up Lee because of the statement that free agents never sign early. Comparable? Yes. A good comparison? No. Instead of signing when he did Lee could have waited until the end of the season and test free agency. Instead of waiting to see if Aramis would test free agency at the end of the season the Cubs could have made an offer to him. Both would have been free agents at the end of the season. A good compaision, I think so.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that? Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team. I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit. The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage. That's a different argument then. Sure, people on the bench who can hit are more valuable, and players should not be kept on the roster who are seen as only defensive replacements. If they are on a roster though and a team is up late, there is value in a defensive replacement-just not nearly as much usually as an offensive player on the bench. People thought you were arguing originally that a defensive replacemnt in-game is never a good move instead of the value between an offensively minded bench guy and a defensively minded bench guy. That is exactly what I'm saying. Baseball is a game of %. Having a guy on your bench simply becuase he is a good glove is never a good idea. the opportunity costs are just too high over the long haul.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. Ok the logic is faulty. Here's the deal, Why pay a guy and take up space on the 25 man roster when whatever minimal benefit he might provide is going to matter maybe once or twice a season, if that? Substituting Freddy Bynum for Matt Murton or Neifi Perez for Todd Walker is just foolish. Those two are 2/13 of the position players on the Cubs team (the kept 12 pitchers). If you take out Blanco they represent 1/6 of the entire team. I don't know if the figures could be generated but I would think that having Bynum and Perez on the bench cost the Cubs more games than if the Cubs had guys on the bench who could actually hit. The value of the bench lies in it's ability to create runs. If you have to rely on your bench for jacks-of-all trades-masters-of-none defensive replacements you are putting your team at a decided disatvantage.

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive. Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie. I also don't think this is just about the money. If the Cubs go to Aramis and tell him they want him around and would like to work out an extension before the opt-out clause kicks in, I think he talks. The Cubs might not have liked to hear what he said, but at least they are talking. Now Hendry is holding none of the cards.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings? A team needs guys on the bench who have some pop and can hit a fastball. And they need a backup catcher. Anyone else can be brought up.

Len should write an Op-Ed piece for the Tribune sports page.

aaaaaaaaaahh.....Hershal Walker..the one name that can absolutely kill any Viking fan's arguement....lol I'm a Vikings fan, that's why I brought it up.

Can you go 1 day without posting an Iraq/Bush reference on a baseball message board? Just checking. :wink: I was just pointing out it is not only sports. BTW>Someone has to do it, becuase the media is too lazy. We are at war and American's are dying (at an average of more than 3/day last month) and all they can talk about is John F. Kerry's stupid attempt at humor. With Aramis they are taking a minor flaw and parroting it as if it is a defining characteristic. He's been the most productive Cub player for three years and all they can talk about is running out grounders and fly balls. I think the FJM blog is over the top at times, but with the Aramis blog they were right on the money.

Lately I've given it more thought, but I've really gone 180 on the Tribune. I might be in the minority here, but I don't mind the current ownership. They've pretty much done everything I would like an owner to do. What I mean is that, they haven't won or put up a consistent winner, but I don't think it is from lack of trying. They've put money back into the team and they've let the "baseball people" make the baseball decisions. If there is one thing I could criticize it would be that they've let the baseball people make poor decisions for too long. I really fear what might happen if an owner buys the Cubs as a vanity acquisition. Jerry Jones got lucky when he hired Jimmy Johnson. And Jimmy got lucky that Minnesota was stupid. There are far worse owners than the Tribune Co. in professional sports.

Thanks for checking in, Bruce! I admitted that it's highly unlikely that Hendry has anything to do with the volume of anti-Aramis articles in the papers and reoprts on the radio, but the frequency of it all is just amazing to me. I know you said a lot of media aren't sabermetrically clued in, so to speak, but Aramis isn't a player you need to look at deep stats to see the value of. He puts up big numbers in the traditional "triple crown" stats. I just don't get the articles ignoring all of his positive contributions. How bad with the media must he be, then! That is exactly right. No slight to Bruce, but these articles are examples of lazy journalism. Marriotti is typical of this type of journalism, as is Mike Lupica. They write the esay story and don't delve into the facts or tell the reader anything they might not already know or be predisposed to think. It's not just sports, it's this type of journalism that helped us get into Iraq.

The Orioles and Rangers could have interest. Jim Duquette sounds like Jim Hendry.