Diffusion

Firstly, Eyre's walk numbers aren't better than Ryan's at all. Working off the statistics that I provided before... BJ Ryan (aged 29, turns 30 in December) June 19th 2002 (something of a turning point in Ryan's career apparently, all bad before, all brilliant ever since...) through present day 243 IP, 181 H, 11 HR, 104 BB, 316 K, 2.59 ERA, 2.67 FIPS Scott Eyre (aged 33, turns 34 in March) May 1st 2002 (date Eyre claims he started taking medication for ADHD) through present day 229 IP, 200 H, 16 HR, 101 BB, 188 K, 3.03 ERA, 3.79 FIPS ...Eyre has registered 3.97 BB/9, Ryan 3.85. However, this disguises the following split in Ryan's numbers... BJ Ryan... June 19th 2002 - September 2nd 2003 76.2 IP, 56 H, 3 HR, 40 BB, 85 K, 3.29 ERA, 3.26 FIPS, 4.70 BB/9 September 3rd 2003 - present day 166.1 IP, 125 H, 8 HR, 64 BB, 231 K, 2.27 ERA, 2.40 FIPS, 3.46 BB/9 In other words, Ryan has kicked it up twice, once taking him from a reliever that just couldn't figure it out to a fine reliever still plagued with control problems, and the second time going from that to, well, pretty much the perfect reliever. If we try and find a similar split for Eyre, it doesn't work, though I suppose we could note that he walked just 8 in his last 36.1 innings in 2005. One thing I guess we could note is this in Eyre's strikeout rate... Scott Eyre May 1st 2002 - April 26th 2003 110 IP, 109 H, 5 HR, 49 BB, 74 K, 2.70 ERA, 3.78 FIPS, 6.05 K/9 April 27th 2003 - present day 119 IP, 91 H, 11 HR, 52 BB, 114 K, 3.33 ERA, 3.80 FIPS, 8.62 K/9 However, I guess that strikeout improvement is countered by a thoroughly expected rise in the number of home runs allowed. Being a flyball pitcher can have its advantages - it can allow you to sustain slightly below expected batting averages on balls in play against, since in play flyballs are turned into outs at a better rate than any other type of batted ball. However, there are two problems with flyballs. One, no double play. And two, flyballs have this nasty habit of finding themselves in the bleachers, the home run being the absolute worst thing a pitcher in the business of run prevention can allow to happen. Research has shown that there's a strong and unsurprisingly correlation between flyballs allowed and home runs given up, and, in general, a pitcher can expected to allow a dinger for every ten flyballs he allows. It's therefore highly likely that Eyre's home run rate will stabilise in the long-term around the 11 HR in 119 IP ratio, as opposed to the 5 HR in 110 IP ratio he preceeded that with. Eyre's home run ratio might even go higher. Of those 16 home runs, none were allowed in Coors Field, and with the exception of Arizona, the rest of the NL West features ballparks that are very pitcher friendly, not least SBC, which Eyre has recently called his own. But in the NL Central, it's a different story. Wrigley obviously depends on which way the winds blow, but the Astros and Reds play in launching pads, PNC and Miller Park are no better than neutral, and who knows how the new Busch will play. Anyway, regarding the significance of strikeout rate... Individual strikeout rate vs ERA, 1993-2002 http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/images/2617_01.gif Source: Baseball Prospectus That's called correlation. Negative correlation, actually. Essentially, what that graph shows is that pitchers with lower ERAs on average strikeout more batters. It's not a co-incidence. More strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean fewer hits allowed. And fewer hits allowed mean fewer runs allowed. A strikeout is an out every single time. A ball in play, well, it could go just past the dive of your shortstop with lousy range. Your second baseman could bobble it. Your third baseman could make a nice pick, but throw the ball away. Your centre fielder could take a roundabout route on the ball. Or it could just go where there are no fielders at all. Maybe hit off the outfield wall. Maybe a rocket right down the first base line. Maybe a dribbler down the third base line. A bloop just between infield and outfield. Or it could be turned into an out. Just not always. A pitcher can do everything right, his fielders can do everything right, and it can still go for a hit. That's the trouble with a ball in play, you just never know. A strikeout? Well, unless AJ Pierzynski's around, it's an out every single time.

BJ Ryan (aged 29, turns 30 in December) June 19th 2002 (something of a turning point in Ryan's career apparently, all bad before, all brilliant ever since...) through present day 243 IP, 181 H, 11 HR, 104 BB, 316 K, 2.59 ERA, 2.67 FIPS Scott Eyre (aged 33, turns 34 in March) May 1st 2002 (date Eyre claims he started taking medication for ADHD) through present day 229 IP, 200 H, 16 HR, 101 BB, 188 K, 3.03 ERA, 3.79 FIPS Bob Howry (aged 32, turns 33 in August) April 1st 2004 (date Howry made return from elbow injury/general crapiness with Red Sox) through present day 115.2 IP, 86 H, 9 HR, 28 BB, 87 K, 2.57 ERA, 3.43 FIPS The trouble with Eyre and Howry is that their peripheral numbers do not point to them being able to keep their ERAs down where they are now, as the FIPS indicate. Almost all of their successes have been driven by limiting hits without limiting balls in play. Precarious, particularly in Howry's case, as we're only talking about 115.2 innings. Howry has at least done a fine job of avoiding home runs and walks, but he hasn't struck enough guys out of late. Eyre's strikeout rate is similarly unspectacular, but he's putting runners on base at a damaging rate. And both Eyre and Howry are older, and therefore bigger risks, short-term and long-term.

Yes, because I think we'd be overpaying big time. Mark Kotsay is an extremely good defensive centre fielder, and a decent hitter for his position. He'll turn thirty in December though, and I think the contract extension that Beane signed him too this year was a bit expensive, at $7.05m in 2006, $7m in 2007 and $8m in 2008, or $22.05m over the next 3 years. He's worth nearer $15-18m. Kotsay also has a full no-trade clause up until the 2007 season, and a limited no-trade clause after that. That's obviously problematic in terms of acquiring him, and problematic if we want to move him at a later date. If Kotsay's actually available and willing to move, which is highly debatable, he's probably the best available CF out there besides Milton Bradley, and he of course comes without all the Bradley baggage. All the same, the Cubs shouldn't be sending two above average major league players that are underpaid relative to their production for one that's above average but overpaid, and older (than Williams at least). Also, I don't think that Beane would be particularly interested in Walker, given that he has the very brilliant but nobody knows it (expect those that need to know it) Mark Ellis at second base. I don't think Beane would be particularly interested in Robinson Cano for that matter either. That leads me to suggest that he didn't seriously consider the Yankee's interest, just said whatever he needed to say to get them to back off, and isn't that open to trading Kotsay, or at least isn't open to appearing to be open to trading Kotsay, if you see what I mean.

We could, but that would just be very stupid.

Why not Karonka? maybe because koronka is a lefty and has some trade value? I wish the Cubs would hurry up and cash in on it if this trade value actually exists.

Todd Walker and the Cubs pitching prospect (maybe Mitre, the Marlins are reportedly fans) should be enough to get a deal done with the Marlins for just Luis Castillo, given that they'd be saving $3.56m in the deal, getting a replacement for Castillo and a rotation option that they actually really need (right now their rotation reads Willis, Vargas, Olsen.......). We could also eat some Walker contract if necessary, thus saving the Marlins more money. If the Dodgers can't work out a trade for Milton Bradley, they'll almost certainly non-tender him. In other words, there's no way that they're going to get Juan Pierre in exchange for just Milton Bradley. In fact, they'll be lucky to get anything given that no-one's interested in Bradley at all. So it'd be best to simply orchestrate two trades separately. Send maybe Wellemeyer to the Dodgers, then Walker and Mitre to the Marlins, and you end up with the exact same haul but get to keep Rusch and Hairston for later trades (hopefully) while losing just players you no longer really need. Incidentally, the Cubs should try and market Hairston as a second baseman, I think. There he's actually about average. He's a superb bench player, but they're not very marketable. But as a starting outfielder, he's next to useless, without the glove to play any of the three outfield positions, particularly CF, and without the bat to play the corners. Sell him as a 2B, though, and I think they could get a decent return. Possible teams in the market for a 2B include the Cardinals, Mariners, Mets, Pirates, Rangers, Red Sox, Rockies, Royals and Twins.

Um, let's not exaggerate here...Wood, Pinto, Hill, Guzman are not bullpen options. Novoa sucks. Wellemeyer is no longer a prospect. Aardsma has self-imploded. Shoot, Andy Shipman is a better prospect than Aardsma at this point. If Howry is indeed signed, the Cubs have but two extra relievers beyond the seven they'll certainly carry (because of Wood's fragility). One is Novoa, who cannot/will not beat out Mike Wuertz. He's likely trade bait later this winter. The other is Van Buren, who could be trade bait, but more likely will simply return to Iowa for Round 2, on call as the first option should an injury befall one of the ML relievers. Wood is certainly a bullpen option if the surgery hasn't done anything about his inability to go beyond whatever number of pitches it is, if there's even a word of truth to that excuse. Hill has stuff that would play a lot better right now in the bullpen than in the starting rotation, there may be longering concerns about Guzman's health that would make the Cubs prefer putting him in the bullpen at least at first, and both, along with Pinto, could make their way into the majors in the bullpen regardless of the above if there's simply not a spot open in the rotation but they're ready. If they're so ready, particularly in Guzman or Hill's case, that they force a starter out of the rotation, then both Rusch and Williams could be bullpen options. I've listed Wellemeyer and Aardsma for the sake of being comprehensive. Wellemeyer is out of options, and the Cubs will either trade him or try and outright him to Triple-A, whereupon he'll probably be claimed off waivers and lost for nothing. He was in the same situation as Jon Leicester, and he is in the same situation as Sergio Mitre. Hendry completely missed the boat with all three of them, they should have been out of the organisation a long time ago. Aardsma meanwhile I wouldn't write off completely yet, but I agree that it doesn't look good for him right now. And Roberto Novoa doesn't suck. Filthy stuff, very promising K/9 and HR/9 peripherals, no significant history of control problems prior to last year, the .333 BABIP against probably will prove a statistical anomoly over time, and he can be expected to improve with major league experience. As such he has a very good shot at becoming a well above average late inning pitcher.

Dempster Howry Eyre Williamson Wuertz Novoa Ohman Rusch/Williams Van Buren Wood? Hill Pinto Guzman Wellemeyer Aardsma Anyone think we maybe have enough bullpen options now? Nah, didn't think so, let's sign Dotel! I swear, when we trade Hill and Williams, we had better get an absolute fortune for them.

Is that Descartes quote from Meditation of First Philosophy...? It is. The sabermetrics of humanity.

Oh boy. Silly Marlins.

You know, I had no idea who Jeremy Hermida was until you posted this. I just looked him up. Hooooooooly crap. Also famous for hitting a grand slam in his first major league plate appearance.

But why is that? Is that because Texas needs to shed payroll in order to take on Lowell? Maybe Florida feels entitled to a top prospect because they are picking up some of Lowell's contract. I'm advocating the Cubs pick up Lowell's entire deal for Beckett, and as such, not give anything back. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just want to know. If the Cubs come in and pick up 2 years and $18M, I would think Florida would say thank you very much. Hoops No, it's because the Marlins actually want talent in return for their best pitcher, regardless of the fact that they're dumping a bad-ish contract in the process.

Would you be willing to take Beckett if there was a chance Lowell became a very expensive backup 1B/3B bench player? I don't see a whole lot of teams that are going to want him on their own. Beckett is too good of a talent to pass on lightly. Minnesota is interested in Lowell. Yankees want Torii Hunter. If I'm Hendry, I work out a 4-team deal a la the Nomar deal from 2004. Marlins trade Beckett and Lowell to the Cubs for Glendon Rusch, Adam Greenberg and a marginal pitching prospect, but with the Cubs picking up Lowell's entire contract. The Cubs turn around and deal Lowell, Walker, Patterson, a young pitching prospect and some cash (maybe $2M for Lowell) to Minnesota for Torii Hunter, and JC Romero. The Cubs then trade Hunter to the Yankees for Gary Sheffield. Net: Cubs get Beckett and Sheffield Your plan is brilliant all the way up until you mention Beckett/Lowell for Rusch/Greenberg/marginal pitching prospect. Blalock/Diamond is pretty much already on the table, because Texas will come around on the pitching prospect if push comes to shove. Now Blalock is ridiculously overrated, but I'll take him over Rusch/Greenberg, and obviously you take Diamond/Danks over a marginal Cub pitching prospect. If the Cubs want Beckett, a player the Cubs are actually going to miss is going to be in the deal.

For the record, the contracts on the Marlins are... Lowell, 06:$9M, 07:$9M Castillo, 06:$5M, 07:$5.75M club option ($0.5M buyout) Lo Duca, 06:$6.25M, 07:$6.25M (plus $0.8m in signing bonus outstanding) Delgado, 06:$13.5M, 07:$14.5M, 08:$16M, 09:$12M/16M options ($4M buyout) Villone, 06:$2M (plus incentives and $0.25m in signing bonus outstanding) And Pierre ($3.4M in 2005, 1 yr from FA), Beckett ($2.4M, 2 yrs from FA) and Mota ($2.6M in 2005, 1 yr from FA) are arbitration eligible. Encarnacion, Burnett, Gonzalez, Conine, Valdez, Jones, Easley, Harris, Moehler, Alfonseca, Quantrill, Mecir and Mordecai are all free agents. Everyone else is kids, and by virtue of their price tag, almost certainly not available. Sorry Dontrelle Willis, Miguel Cabrera and Jeremy Hermida fans.

Not true. I believe the intent of your first post was to mock the moderators on this forum, which suggests to me that this discussion has a similar intent. I suggest you bring in up with Tim if your concern is an honest one, either via PM or email. The intent of my first post was actually to illustrate the extremely marginal difference between this thread and those that were removed from the site. I have every respect for Brinoch, I don't recall ever having a problem with him, I don't believe he's ever had a problem with me. What I wrote was not targetted at him at all. I didn't pass judgement on what's the right or wrong course of action either in relation to this thread or those that were removed from the site, I still haven't, and I won't, since it's completely unnecessary that I do so. What I think, not holding any position of authority here, is absolutely irrelevant. But either outright, undisguised and unashamed public mockery of the appearance of others is compatible with this being "a family site, welcoming to kids...", or it is not. If it is, and the fact that you've not so far chosen to remove this thread from the site suggests as much, perhaps you could care to reconcile that policy with the same one that led to you removing the other threads from the site?

In all seriousness, are you saying then that outright, undisguised and unashamed public mockery of the appearance of others is compatible with this being "a family site, welcoming to kids..."? In all seriousness, are you saying your post in this thread was sincere? That's neither here nor there as regards whether or not mockery of the appearance or others is compatible with your site policy. Or is your site policy that a problem only exists if someone actively complains about it, or enough people actively complain? In which case, may I suggest, your site policy needs reviewing with regards to objective and consistent implimentation, which ought to be a defining property of every set of rules or regulations.

In all seriousness, are you saying then that outright, undisguised and unashamed public mockery of the appearance of others is compatible with this being "a family site, welcoming to kids..."?

I'm sorry, but the fault lies in your interpretations of my words. Novoa is unreliable. That does not at all assume that he will always be unreliable. What irks me is the fact that I've had to repeat my stance several times that I have no problem with having Novoa in the bullpen, and taking the risk of a less than steller relief corps. I've said Novoa has great stuff with the ability to be a great reliever. He's just shown nothing to do to make me confident that he will be. He's unreliable. He's the very definition of unreliable when discussing pitchers. Why some people are so taken aback from such a simple, uncontroversial, completely dispassionate statement is baffling. If Novoa is unreliable, I'm not sure what the problem is. Whether you're reliable or not doesn't make any difference in November. There aren't any baseball games in November. His unreliability at this present moment in time, hence the use of the present tense, makes absolutely no difference. Hence what you meant, and I don't particularly care whether this is putting words in your mouth or not, by Novoa is completely unreliable is that you think that Novoa will still be completely unreliable at the stage when his reliability is actually an issue, as in, when the Cubs next start playing games, as in next year. One thing I certainly never said as far as putting words in your mouth is that you think that Novoa will always be unreliable. Or at least I didn't mean to. But I too have been obscure though, I see. Here, I'll rephrase... You happy now, or do you want to explain what the problem is here?

Okay folks. Enough is enough. This poll is completely out of hand. I’m posting this announcement to let you know that this contest should be over. This is open for discussion or debate. The contest should be over. What started this winter as a rather quiet distraction very quickly became an all-consuming monster. Not only have the pictures been out of line, but many of the comments were inappropriate, anti-ugly and completely unacceptable. This is a family site, welcoming to kids and to women. It was made clear after initial objections surfaced where the boundaries would be -- effectively, a PG rating. However, the content of these threads was most decidely not PG, nor was it family/female friendly. The mods hardly attempted to monitor the various threads. However, very quickly complaints and concerns -- as well as the content itself -- did not overwhelm our ability to police these threads effectively and in a timely manner, apparently because you're all sick. Merely editing the offensive portions of messages, deleting inappropriate pictures, and/or removing offending posts clearly failed to happen in this situation. Inappropriate pictures were not removed by a mod, only to be re-posted anyway later in the day. Rude commentary was encouraged, repeated and applauded. Indeed, these threads quickly turned the polls forum into a locker room and reduced otherwise intelligent, capable members of this community to a bunch of Neanderthals, leering and drooling over pictures of half-formed men. It is apparent that you cannot and will not control yourselves and maintain even the slightest amount of decorum and board appropriateness. This is a baseball site dedicated to the Cubs. We all appreciate that it is the offseason and we’re bored waiting for the 2006 version of our beloved Cubbies to be revealed in all their honor and glory. However, that doesn’t mean that it is acceptable to while away the winter viewing an extended series of polls crudely objectifying men – be they baseball players or otherwise. :wink:

C Barrett 1B Lee 2B Walker 3B Ramirez SS Nomar LF Murton CF Bradley RF Big bat Why not?

Now that i agree with, but to say that he hasn't been unreliable...not really true. And to say that he's been reliable while Farnsworth was not is not an arguable point. I can't argue with the fact that he has been unreliable, obviously. But to say that he "is unreliable", where what you're essentially getting at is that you think he'll be unreliable in the future, on the basis of nothing besides the fact he's been unreliable in the past, somewhat irks me. Is there no chance that he'll improve with experience? And are the chances of his filthy stuff prevailing non-existent? Are last year's walks necessarily the best indicator of the extent of his control? Goony seems to have to his conclusions, presumptuously. So, Novoa is an excellent option regardless. He's good excellent stuff, there's reason to believe his control problems are transitory, he'll cost you $316k. What you should be whining about is the fact that the Cubs have been giving out expensive contracts to relievers (Dempster, Eyre) that seemingly aren't these really solid guys and that don't have a nice history of pitching well in the job. It's only that that makes having yet another non-sure thing in the bullpen such as Novoa potentially a problem. I had damn well better then, and I damn well would be doing if I was in charge. Instead of wasting money on middling relievers. Right now we're looking at, at best, Barrett, Lee, Walker, Ramirez, Neifi, Murton, Corey and Hairston as our lineup next year. That's a whole lot less acceptable than the bullpen we were looking at before Eyre.

What other word could you use to describe him? He's got good stuff, and at times could have a great outing. But overall he sucked. His WHIP was 1.6. That's the very definition of reliable. If he was reliable, you would be willing to bet pretty good money that he'd put up a solid line next season, and I would be willing to bet there aren't many people willing to do that. He's unreliable. You have no idea what he'll give you next year, or on a day-to-day basis. Inconsistent would be a better word. I'm not ready to hand him the closer's role or anything. But considering his stuff, his age, and his low pricetag, I have no problem with him in the bullpen. He certainly doesn't have to be the first, second, or even third person used. Let's face it, with Dusty managing, this team is probably going to carry 12 pitchers for at least a few months of the season. I'd rather him be the 11th or 12th man, than someone making $3 million+ a year who isn't guaranteed to perform much better than Novoa. I don't see how anything you wrote refutes the statement that Novoa is unreliable. Is he unreliable or completely unreliable as you initially stated? Just curious, because to me there is a difference. Farnsworth was unreliable. He was capable of being great, and he was capable of being downright awful. Felix Heredia was completely unreliable. Although I guess if you were relying on him to be awful, then you could view him as reliable. Novoa strung together some good outings last season. He needs to cut back on the walks a bit. I'm optimistic he can do that after looking at his walk rates in the minors. There is no way you can say Farnsworth was unreliable and Novoa was not. There is a way you can say Novoa possesses absolutely filthy stuff, has no history of control problems and ought to improve as he becomes acclimatised to the major leagues.

Paraphrase please! I'm guessing... "You gotta catch the ball" and, maybe, if we're lucky... "You gotta throw the ball with your left hand and have one year of success, maybe two, no more"

Farnsworth has strung together some good seasons, that's a lot different than Novoa stringing together some good outings. He walks far too many, and doesn't strike out enough to make up for it. He's completely unreliable. That doesn't mean he's completely incapable of doing something good, but you'd be nuts to pencil him into the bullpen with any sort of expectation for solid performance. Consider me nuts.

Dear Goony, Let me please get this straight... Our bullpen must be filled from top to bottom, no exceptions, with guys that are completely reliable (read consistently good), which is why Roberto Novoa and Jermaine Van Buren miss the cut, requiring us to throw huge sums of money at reliable (read consistently good, or maybe just good once or twice) Dempster and Eyre etc? Puzzled, Diffusion