CubinNY

Number 1 was so good, I can't wait for 2 :D ND sucks. Their fans are more whiny than Sanoma and they don't deserve to be in any BCS bowl game ever, no matter what their record because they don't play in a conference.

Are you serious? Feliz, Wright, Rolen, Zimmerman > Ramirez. Wright was among the worst fielding 3Bs this year by BBTF's metric. Most scouts and analysts expect Wright to be a very good defensive 3B, but he wasn't this year. Nor was he last year. The discussion almost got me in big trouble, with the big man. God got angry at you for your opinions on David Wright's fielding? No God's right hand man, Tim.

Is June "Run-N-Shoot" Jones still their coach?

I hope so too. But I fear he will just look pathatic. I'd rather remember Sammy as he was in 1998.

That's some interesting logic. Again, because the costs of doing it are much worse than the costs of not doing it, given the fact that if the team scores a run the odds of the player playing a part in that run are pretty slim. So, putting a defensive upgrade in is a bad move. It's a coaching move that is made based on conventional wisdom that more often than not results in no benefit, and could ultimately result in a bad outcome should the inferior hitter ever come to the plate later in the game.

The best defender does not make the best team. You defended a move by saying you have to trust the players. Making a change already indicates you don't trust your players, and simply trusting them is not justification enough for making the move. You have to make the best move for the team, and often times in baseball, that is no move at all. A defensive upgrade is not necessarily the best move just becasue it's a defensive upgrade. There are other factors to consider, and you can't dismiss them simply by saying you trust your players to make those other factors moot. For most of the game I agree with you. But if I have a lead in the ninth, I'd certainly be more inclined to put the better defender to help keep that lead. i think that the benefits of doing that are negligible at best. the chances that the player at said position will make an error to cost the team the game are far less than the chances that the opposing team will tie the score through hitting a home run or driving the ball into a gap, thus making it likely that the player in question will have to come to bat. OK, but why take the risk? Because the costs of doing it are much worse than the costs of not doing it. And the benefits or doing it are so insignificant as to make the move foolish. I haven't heard a good reason to keep a guy on a team soley for defensive purposes in all this debate. If people agree that it shouldn't be done (keeping a guy on the team) then putting him in is a bad idea too.

Does it really matter? He's stated he's going to play both sports. IMO, the only way he doesn't is if some team drafts him and sweatens the pot so he doesn't play baseball. I think in that type of scenario he'd have to drop baseball eventually. Maybe he'd be able to be in the minors for a year or two, but his resolve would give out when he's making lots of money in the NFL before he ever got to the majors in MLB. Not to mention the fact that the Cubs would be on the hook for a lot of money.

Does it really matter? He's stated he's going to play both sports. IMO, the only way he doesn't is if some team drafts him and sweatens the pot so he doesn't play baseball.

That is completely ridicilous. Louisville has beat up on the likes of Temple, Kansas St, Middle Tenn, Cincinnati, and Syracuse. The only half-way decent teams they've beaten are the vastly over-rated Miami and West Virginia. They would get pounded by any number of teams below them including Texas Tennesse ND Auburn USC The Big East is a joke of a Football Conference. When they play in the title game, if they beat the might Rutgers team, they are going to get crushed.

Notice there is no mention of the Cubs. Shef could have a helluva year in the Juice Box.

Are you serious? Feliz, Wright, Rolen, Zimmerman > Ramirez. Wright was among the worst fielding 3Bs this year by BBTF's metric. Most scouts and analysts expect Wright to be a very good defensive 3B, but he wasn't this year. Nor was he last year. The discussion almost got me in big trouble, with the big man.

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.