CubinNY

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.

Jones like Soriano has to prove he can play CF. I think Soriano has the better tools to play CF over Jones. As far as Lee, how long till he eats himself into playing DH/1B? He's not that much better than M. Ramirez right now defensively. Speaking of, is there any chance of acquiring Ramirez this offseason? That would be nice. I always have liked Manny. hahaha. I thought he was talking about Aramis. I guess I should read the referenced post.

He made 30 starts and threw 211 innings in 2003. He was on the DL that year too. Which means he has never pitched in a full season without being hurt. Plenty of people who aren't hurt throw less than 30 starts or 211 IP. It's really nitpicking to say he didn't pitch a full season. He hasn't pitched in a full season without being hurt. IF he didnt get hurt in 03, then he would have pitched in a full season. He missed a month of baseball because of that injury. That is about the dumbest thing I've read on here in a while. Prior was hurt in a freak accident and then pitched with a bad leg down the stretch, and pitched well. It's petty.

I don't think so. I think there is no way Aramis signs before the Nov. 11 deadline. I think he is going to see what he can get and see if Hendry will match the offer. My guess is that Hendry doesn't because there is a lot of money to spend of free-agents this year and not a lot of talent on the market, especially at 3rd base. I think a team with less holes with throw big, big dollars Aramis's way.

Now that is a blockbuster!

I could see an Adam Dunn for Bonderman trade. They could use him at 1st and as a DH. If I'm Detriot, I'd be all over that.

Well, they seem to really like Colvin. That's good. The ND dude, I won't get excited about until I see where he's drafted. If he's a first rounder I think he plays football.

How about giving him a Beltre or Lee like contract? If the Cubs knew he was going to opt out, why not "give him an offer he can't refule" to keep the Godfather refernce going? Hendry is playing with fire here. And I was upset in 2005 when the contract was announced. I hope the Cubs resign him, but I don't like the odds.

Bruce, I understand what you are saying. However, at the same time I can't help but wonder why? If Aramis wants to stay in Chicago If Hendry wants Aramis to stay in Chicago Then, shouldn't they have worked out the parameters of a contract before this? I mean, holy crist, he's only been the most productive Cub player for the last three years (combined). What is the problem? He's 28, he's arguably one the best players at his position in MLB, and he's publically stated he wants to be in Chicago. I can't help but panic.

I've said it before, but anyone who gives Soriano a five year deal will have very expensive 36 year-old player. I don't mind giving younger players longer contracts but Soriano will already be on the wrong side of 30 when he signs his next deal. I don't think I like it unless the contract is heavily front-loaded.

Mike Lowell here we come! :cry: Please find a way to get A-Rod, please.

I can hardly wait for the Ohio State vs. West Virginia/Louisville national championship game. It should be a barn burner.

I believe we are in serious trouble right now. I'll second that. The window is closing quickly.

I think I get what they are saying re: walks. What they are saying is that a hitter can't go up to the plate expecting the pitcher will walk him. A hitter has to go up to the plate with an idea of putting the bat on the ball, making solid contact. To do that you have to know your swing, where you want to hit the ball, and a few other things. So you go up there looking for a ball in a particular location or if you know the pitcher you may guess on what pitch he will throw. If it's not in the spot or the pitch you don't swing. It could even be a strike, but you don't swing. You do this until you get two strikes. A batter needs to be agressive in the zone but disciplined in his selection.

He's the head baseball coach at his alma mater last I heard.