jjgman21

I think the bigger mistake was pulling Ohman for a pinch hitter with a five run lead and the bases juiced with no outs. just let him hit. worst case scenerio is a dp, and the guy he sent up is the master of hitting into the dp. better yet, send him up with instructions to not take the bat off his shoulder, and wait for a K or a BB. let Barrett, who has hit the ball hard all day, try to pick him up if he Ks he should have recognized that the the umps strikezone was the size of a pea and the bullpens biggest weakness is walking guys, thus alot of bullpen pitchers might be needed. he especially should have recognized this considering there were 4 innings to go, and he only had one other lefty out of the pen, and going into an inning where the expected batters were pinch hitter, lefty, swith hitter who is better as a lefty, lefty, lefty. edit for this - was typing when Diffusion entered his post, but I still would have left Ohman in. second edit - it occurs to me that if Dusty did what I said, the cascading effect of bad moves never would have been made.

Yes, eerily similar, right down to Z going 4 2/3 innings. Here's hoping someone doesn't tear a groin in a few weeks. that's the way things were setting up, but Z changed the Kharma by not bitching at the ump for his ridiculous strikezone and getting booted on his way off the field (not that Z could hit the side of a bard either openning day). thus, even on what will be one of his three or four worst outtings of the year, Z saved us.

FWIW, Carlton isn't a very good retort as the situations are not similar. I guess you are right. Carlton was a really good pitcher coming off an average year and was traded for a very average pitcher coming off a career year. Brock was a struggling young player who looked like he would never turn it around and was traded for a pitcher who was 30-11 with a 130ish ERA+ over the past two season. those trades were not similar. at the time they were made, the Carlton trade was much, much worse. Never said it wasn't a bad trade but it still isn't a good retort to the Brock trade. As I said the situations are not similar. I think purple and violet are not similar. thanks for the elaborate and detailed analysis.

1. Furcal has more skills than just speed 2. One stupid deal by one stupid team does not shift an entire market for players. I heard a tidbit a few months ago, I think was a secondhand account of something Beane said, that since all the post-Moneyball hubbabaloo, OBP is starting to get valued properly, and speed is now a skill that is undervalued.

FWIW, Carlton isn't a very good retort as the situations are not similar. I guess you are right. Carlton was a really good pitcher coming off an average year and was traded for a very average pitcher coming off a career year. Brock was a struggling young player who looked like he would never turn it around and was traded for a pitcher who was 30-11 with a 130ish ERA+ over the past two season. those trades were not similar. at the time they were made, the Carlton trade was much, much worse.

jjgman21 might say to his boss hey, it's true...except for the sniffle and cough cough parts.

This is what I mean, why compare the Cubs to the Stros, Sox, Indians, and Dodgers. What does it prove, beyond other teams with prospects that fail to walk often. The reason why you use top 10 prospects is b/c despite the small number, most who make an impact (starter) will come from the top 10 in each organization. The 10-30 range will likely consist of bench players or never make it to the majors. again, allow me to preface this by stating that I wish the Cubs organization emphasized plate discipline and patience more. I understand what you are saying about the top ten turning into starters, but your methodology is still extremely problematic. for instance, if Murton had about 10 fewer plate appearances, he would be on BA's Cubs top 10 (although that would bump Patterson off the list). also, when projecting future starters, using BA's list is extremely problematic because they so heavily emphasize ceiling. thus, Ryan Harvey makes their list, but he is far from certain to be a starter. as alluded to above, BA excludes guys that take a long time to figure it out, so Sing is excluded. BA also is unkind to players who lost the sparkle they had a couple years ago, so players like Scott Moore don't make it (as another example of this, Dope has another bad year, and he's no longer in this equation). finally, using this methodology skews the numbers when a player or two, ie Harvey and Dope, don't take a walk. in sum, using BA, or plucking any random set of 4 or 5 prospects to prove a point about the overall organization is not an precise enough method. if there is a prospect list out there that ranks in terms of "10 position players who will help within the next two years, starter, platoon or bench, maximum 175 major league plate appearance" the list very well may be Murton 33/347 Cedeno 20/245 Pagan 49/516 Pie 16/240 Sing 91/409 Theriot 45/448 Greenberg 56/305 Fontenot 59/379 Soto 48/292 Moore 55/466 using those players, instead of focusing on guys that might be complete busts even though they are potential starters or stars, and the Cubs minor league prospects average about 65BBs per 500 ABs.

well then it's a good thing I had the other purposes of pointing out a transaction, critiquing that transaction and pointing out that GMs who most everybody thinks are very good also make questionable decisions. posts put up for the singular reason of dumping on the form of the post by innaccurately supposing facts and intent are so self sacrificing and such a valuable contribution. thanks for taking the time jc. we all appreciate the insight. how do you manage to impart such topical wisdom?

Both Cin and Oak are outliers. That doesn't change the facts. But your points are well taken. Nevertheless being a big market/big dollar team is no excuse for poor draft philosphy and poor player development. And I think it is quite clear the Cubs "philosophy" translates to wasted investments and a poor record. I very much wish the Cubs would adopt a philosophy of mixing in more low risk draft picks and plate discipline/patience for hitters, but I think what is left out in the discussion of draft philisophy is the other part of the Cubs draft philisophy, which is "draft lots and lots and lots of pitching." when 7 or 8 of your top 10 draft picks are pitchers year after year, it's not surprising that the organization as a whole lacks patient, disciplined hitters because the talent pool of your hitters is not going to be at the same level as alot of other organizations who draft more position players in the early rounds. I think there are simply too many variables to take this study with anything but a grain of salt, with the exception of the A's

You are comparing apples to oranges, IMO. Yes, we crucified the Cubs, but because Hollandsworth was the STARTER, not the bench help. Hollandsworth has basically spent his whole career as bench help. I will agree that you fill bench positions based on need. Which is why I believe Restovich should be on the Cubs bench. actually, you're arguing some apples and oranges yourself. I am speaking in terms imagining the reactions of people should one GM be operating in the same context as another. your criticism goes to Baker, not Hendry. Hendry said all along that DuBois would see plenty of PT in leftfield, and was at a minimum viewed by Hendry as a platoon player. it was the decision of the Cubs manager that changed all of that. also, I elaborated on the point about this year's Cleveland bench. Shapiro kept Perez and Hollandsworth, when DuBois alone could fill about 95% of the bench role that those two are capable of. time after time I see bemoaning around here of giving bench roles to veterans instead of young players, and I agree with that notion. IMO, a dumb move by a good GM.

maybe a surogate feels like arguing it.... I'd like one more guy who is a more consistant threat and would have preferred Restovich too. but since returning to the majors a couple of years ago, Mabry has hit 24 HRs in 590 ABs. there are not too many bench players in baseball that are a more consistent threat, so you can't say 'zero.' it will be interesting to see if Pagan can keep some of his ST power up. I read an article a few days ago that said the Mets always groomed Pagan to be a slap hitter, whereas he was viewed as a potential power threat when drafted. maybe the organizational change will bring it out of him. I also expect Hairston to get a fair amount of PT, which will give the Cubs Walker off the bench, and Blanco can hit the occasional dinger himself. I look around the division and at other teams around baseball, and I don't see a whole lot of benches with genuine homerun threats. those guys are usually called starters.

like I said in my initial post, I don't know what the bench situation for Cleveland is, nor their organizational situation in terms of outfielders, but I have to wonder, were you saying that before Marquis Grissom retired? what if Holla was back in Cubs camp this year and the choice was between Restovich and Hollandsworth? I know there are differences in leagues and starter v. backup and needs of the team. but looking at the roster a little closer, you guys are also failing to take into account the Indians first base situation. Ben Broussard's complete inability to hit lefties and Eduardo Perez as the righthanded option (who by the way can only play one position). it really seems to me that Cleveland's GM, who I think is outstanding, has filled two roster spots with crappy veterans, when giving DuBois 350-400 ABs at first and outfield seems to be a viable option. I suppose Hollandworth CAN play center. it's not like he has done so in a number of years though. Casey Blake had one nice year but doesn't appear to be anything special (I don't know about the prospects at all), and the Indians have plenty of lefty sticks (Hafner, Sizemore, Martinez, Broussard). sorry, but the more I look at this it seems people will give Shapiro the benefit of the doubt for making the same decisions they would crucify the Cubs for making.

I was not speaking of whether the team improved from 2004-2005. my only reference was stating that in both offseasons, Hendry was kind of over a barrell because everyone knew what the Cubs were trying to do, and the urgency of getting it done. and its jjgman

I know alot of the Hendry critics think that Cleveland's GM is outstanding. I found yesterday's transactions interesting while I don't know what the Indian's bench situation is, I know many people around here would be going ballistic over this move.

thank you for that NY. that's all I've been trying to say to you, goony and BBB all winter. Hendry may not have gotten the players you wanted, but changes were made in areas that desperately needed changing, and in an environment where Hendry was in very poor bargaining position. just like last year with the Sosa situation, every GM and agent in baseball new they had Hendry over a barrell because of his need to make these changes, yet he managed to improve the team, even if only marginally, without too much damage to the organization as a whole. here's to a little health from our pitchers, and maybe a midseason trade to bolster the offense (or to hopes for a managerial change and the guts to have midseason fire sale if the season goes to hell)

this trade does lead me to believe another trade is coming from the Phils. why would the Phils, a pitching starved organization, make that trade when their OF is set with the players mentioned above?

while I don't recall the specifics of that trade or who was valued, PTBNL status does not determine who was the key player in a trade. I'm sure that the Pirates weren't thinking Jose Hernandez was the most valued player in the Aram deal. another point about comments in this thread. I used to like using Steve Carlton as a retort to Lou Brock accusations. but recently I discovered some way-way-back information. how'd Jack Taylor and Larry McLean work out for ya Card fans? http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/brownmo01.shtml what's especially great about it is the way Taylor had some of his worst years with the Cards, then the Cubs got him back, he regained his form going 12-3 and was an integral part in winning the pennant and achieving the best win % in baseball history.

Hairston is the Remlinger of batters. his splits are better against righties.

I'm not too surprised about Wood's progress. I don't like the sound of this: They just haven't set a timeframe since it's too early to tell. Being out indefinitely doesn't mean much. It means he's out for awhile. It shouldn't be sugarcoated. Being out indefinitely is about as general as one can get. It doesn't differentiate between being a month away and being four months away. All it means is that they have yet to determine when they expect him to be activated from the DL. It says nothing about health or progress, just that it's too soon to tell when he should be back if all goes as they plan. There's no sugarcoating. It's just the quickest way of saying what we already knew. I might mean 'we're sick of getting taken to task by the media and fans for giving expected return dates that don't work out, so we're not going to say anything at all.'

http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-kiley31.html thanks ice.

I never have. in fact, I have never picked against the Bears in a pick em pool.

I am concerned that we have heard nothing about Prior throwing since he made 30 tosses four days ago. I'm also anxious to hear how Kerry's stint against hitters went today.

hmmm. I thought it accurately predicted the Cards to run away in 04. anyone remember which system that was?

MLB couldn't force anyone to talk regarding Pete Rose, but they did a pretty thurough investigation. not being a government agency is viewed by everyone as a hinderance because of the inability to compel the witnesses to talk, but not being a governmental entity, they are not bound to the same investigative and prosecutroial methods. they can obtain info in ways the government could not, they are not bound by the rules of evidence, don't have to disclose their sources, they make their own credibility determinations, and formulate their own standards and burdens of proof.

I should have the freedom to say that another person should not exercise his freedom of speech. I would look like an idiot and a hypocrit when doing so, but I certainly should have that freedom.