Diffusion

Iguchi and Uribe, those two can't play middle infield defence to save their lives.

Clear off already, Hendry.

Nice. The above nicely sums up in three well written paragraph every post I've made in transactions in the past three weeks. Well done. May I suggest then, NY, that you're extremely inefficient?

Hopefully this is just hot Eyre. I want BJ!

The Nomar, Lee, Ramirez deals were a long time ago, that's the point. The Cubs, since they signed Neifi Perez to a minor league deal late last August, have all but proven themselves to be stupid. Only the Nomar/Walker re-signings last winter and the Williams trade, which was borne out of their own stupidity in terms of the way they persisted in using Hawkins, have had the hallmarks of a team that has any idea what it's doing. Here's a list of all their transactions... 8/19/04 Signed INF Neifi Perez to a minor league contract and assigned him to Triple-A Iowa. [Neifi is like a good beer - perfectly fine if used responsibly, not so good in the hands of a drunk alcoholic] 8/31/04 Acquired OF Ben Grieve from the Milwaukee Brewers in exchange for a player to be named later. [fair enough, but they then didn't use him for a year and a half] Acquired C Mike DiFelice from the Detroit Tigers in exchange for a player to be named later. [whatever] 9/3/04 Announced LHP Andy Pratt is the player to be named later in the Ben Grieve trade on Aug. 31. [i think this actually counts as a good move] 10/13/04 Selected LHP John Koronka and LHP Will Ohman from Triple-A Iowa; outrighted the contract of OF Nic Jackson to Iowa; C Mike DiFelice and OF Calvin Murray also have elected for free agency. [Cubs see something in Koronka that absolutely everyone else in the world does not] 10/25/04 Declined to pick up the 2005 options for OF Moises Alou and 2B Mark Grudzielanek, making them free agents. [entirely justifiable, actually. Alou's option was far too expensive, Grudz was and still is a lesser 2B than Walker] 11/5/04 Agreed to terms with INF Neifi Perez on a one-year contract for the 2005 season. [hmm, well that worked out just great] 11/18/04 Purchased the contracts of LHP Russ Rohlicek and C Geovany Soto from Double-A West Tenn. [did not protect Andy Sisco, Rohlicek meanwhile will almost certainly find himself cut from the 40 in a few days] 11/20/04 Signed LHP Glendon Rusch to a two-year deal. [gave Rusch a second year player option. Not clever] 12/7/04 Agreed to terms with catcher Henry Blanco on a two-year contract. [i like Whitey, but $2.7m/2yrs?] Agreed to terms on a one-year contract with INF Todd Walker. [very fine contract for the Cubs, only now they're idiotically intent on trading Walker] Agreed to terms on a one-year contract with SS Nomar Garciaparra. [a fine deal, obviously didn't work out, not really the Cubs' fault] 12/20/04 Agreed to terms with INF Jose Macias on a one-year contract. [name me one thing that Macias does at which he's actually good. Baseball related things only. Absolutely no excuse for not non-tendering him, no excuse for having him on the roster, no excuse for using him, no excuse for using him so friggin much] 12/27/04 Re-signed OF Todd Hollandsworth to a one-year contract [not a bad deal, but then the Cubs decided to use him as a starter. Stupid] 1/10/05 Acquired LHP Stephen Randolph from the Arizona Diamondbacks in exchange for a player to be named later. [we never sent the PTNBL. And the deal still wasn't worth it. Not that that wasn't at all inevitable] 1/14/05 Agreed to terms with RHP Chad Fox on a minor league contract with an invitation to Spring Training. [worth a try, then he blew his arm out, perhaps with Dusty's assistance. Ah well, not much lost] 1/18/05 Agreed to terms with RHP Kyle Farnsworth and OF Corey Patterson on one-year contracts. Signed C Michael Barrett to a three-year contract. Agreed to terms with RHP Scott Williamson on a minor league contract with an invitation to Spring Training. [can't really complain about any of these] 2/2/05 Signed OF Jeromy Burnitz to a one-year contract with a mutual option for 2006. [meh. Burnitz was as bleh with the bat as could be expected. Did play surprisingly good defence for what's it worth. Not much, actually, he's a right fielder] Acquired INF/OF Jerry Hairston, INF Mike Fontenot and RHP Dave Crouthers from the Orioles for OF Sammy Sosa and cash considerations. [by cash considerations, they mean $16.15m. The Sosa trade dominated the entire winter. The Cubs first set about publicly devaluing their property, then, when surprisingly not many people were interested, they took whatever they could get for him. Not much. Crouthers decided to retire. Fontenot is apparently not Dusty's favourite player. Hairston's a great Util, a decent 2B, a useless OF. So the Cubs used him as an OF. Why? Because they didn't have any better options. Why? Because they spent so much of their winter preoccupied with Sosa they didn't get around to solving any other problems on the team]. 2/4/05 Agreed with 3B Aramis Ramirez and RHP Carlos Zambrano on one-year contracts; Agreed to terms with IF Dave Hansen on a minor league contract with an invitation to Spring Training. [fair play] 2/9/05 Acquired RHP Roberto Novoa, INF Scott Moore and nonroster OF Bo Flowers from the Tigers in exchange for RHP Kyle Farnsworth and a player to be named later. [hmm. Farns had a great year, hardly unexpected, easily the best player involved in the deal, but he's not a FA. I like Novoa long-termish. Flowers is a complete bust. Moore I doubt will ever make it and should be traded this winter]. 3/29/05 Acquired LHP Cliff Bartosh from the Cleveland Indians in exchange for RHP Ronald Bay. [stupid stupid stupid] 3/30/05 Released LHP Stephen Randolph; Purchased the contract of RHP Scott Williamson from Triple-A Iowa. Traded INF Cody Ransom to the Texas Rangers in exchange for a player to be named later. [irrelevent] 3/31/05 Marlins returned Rule 5 pick LHP Luke Hagerty. [Hagerty then walked 30 batters in something like 6.1 innings in Rookie Ball. Yes, 30 walks in 6.1 innings, no typo] Placed RHP Scott Williamson on the 60-day disabled list recovering from October 2004 Tommy John surgery. Released INF Dave Hansen. [Hansen might have made a decent bench option. But maybe not] 4/4/05 Agreed to terms with INF Aramis Ramirez on a four-year deal for the 2005-2008 campaigns with a mutual option for the 2009 season. [Ramirez gets at opt-out after the 2006 season, continuing the trend they started with Rusch of giving players the opportunity to screw the Cubs]. 4/21/05 Placed INF Nomar Garciaparra on the 15-day disabled list with a left groin injury and recalled INF Ronny Cedeno from Triple-A Iowa. [Cubs screwed Ronny Cedeno around all year] 5/17/05 Signed INF Enrique Wilson; Optioned INF Ronny Cedeno to Triple-A Iowa and transferred RHP Chad Fox to the 60-day disabled list. [since Cedeno was getting screwed in the majors, probably a good move. That's a sad thing to say, that signing Enrique Wilson is a good move. But it was] 5/28/05 Acquired RHP Jerome Williams and RHP David Aardsma from the Giants for RHP LaTroy Hawkins and cash. [fine move, but of course they only had to make the move because they completely messed up with Hawkins] 6/1/05 Recalled LHP John Koronka from Triple-A Iowa and optioned RHP Jon Leicester to Triple-A Iowa. [Cubs bullpen for the first few months of the season was a joke, promotions and demotions all over the place, not all the Cubs fault of course. Still, Koronka?] 7/7/05 Optioned OF Jason Dubois and OF Corey Patterson to Triple-A Iowa and purchased the contracts of OF Adam Greenberg and OF Matt Murton from Double-A West Tennessee. [Greenberg ouch, Murton good. Shame about them not using him regularly for another few months. Good that they bit the bullet with Dubois and Patterson] 7/18/05 Acquired OF Jody Gerut from the Cleveland Indians in exchange for OF Jason Dubois. [good trade, actually] 7/31/05 Traded OF Jody Gerut to the Pirates for OF Matt Lawton and cash [stupid. Cubs were all but out of it at this stage, and Lawton's a notorious second half slumper. And with Murton around, they didn't really need him. And Lawton's a FA at the end of the year. Gerut on the other hand is a superb 4th OF at the very worst] 8/9/05 Acquired RHP Olivio Astacio from the Boston Red Sox in exchange for LHP Mike Remlinger and cash considerations; Recalled OF Corey Patterson from Triple-A Iowa and optioned INF Ronny Cedeno to Iowa. [Cubs actually did well to get out just in time with Remlinger. They did atrociously to let Corey back anywhere near the major leagues, it was far far too early] 8/19/05 Recalled OF Jerry Hairston from his rehab assignment and reinstated him from the disabled list; Optioned OF Matt Murton to Triple-A Iowa. [nice one, not] 8/27/05 Purchased the contract of 3B Scott McClain from Triple-A Iowa. Traded LF Matt Lawton to New York Yankees for Minor League RHP Justin Berg. [would you rather have Jody Gerut or Justin Berg?] 8/29/05 Traded OF Todd Hollandsworth to Atlanta for nonroster RHP Todd Blackford and nonroster RHP Angelo Burrows. [yah, whatever] 8/30/05 Placed RHP Kerry Wood on the 15-day disabled list with a right shoulder injury; Recalled OF Matt Murton and RHP Jermaine Van Buren from Triple-A Iowa. [about time with JVB. Since the Cubs were out of it, they could have used the back end of this season to let him get used to the majors with the results hardly mattering] 9/12/05 Purchased the contract of INF Ryan Theriot from Double-A West Tenn and transferred RHP Kerry Wood from the 15-day disabled list to the 60-day disabled list. [worth noting that Theriot missed the Double-A Championship Series for his callup, maybe not worth complaining about] 10/1/05 Signed RHP Ryan Dempster to a three-year, $15.5 million contract extension. [risky] 10/29/05 Picked up options on INF Todd Walker and RHP Scott Williamson; declined a mutual option on OF Jeromy Burnitz. [sensible] 10/31/05 Signed LHP Glendon Rusch to a two-year contract, guaranteeing him $6 million, plus as much as $1 million more in performance bonuses based on starts. [pointless] 11/8/05 Agreed to terms with INF Neifi Perez on a two-year contract through the 2007 season. [words fail me] 11/16/05 Traded RHP Jon Leicester to the Texas Rangers in exchange for a player to be named later. [whatever]

Rotoworld's being awful nice to Leicester. He had a 1.49 WHIP in almost 600 minor league innings, and his Major League totals are almost mirrors of his minor league numbers. He'll be 26 next year and is behind Wuertz, Williamson, and Novoa for the RH middle relief/setup spot(s). That said, this isn't a bad gamble for the Rangers, since Leicester does have decent stuff. I think it is less of them being nice to Leicester and just not nice to the Cubs. Rarely do I read anything positive about the Cubs coming out of Rotoworld. I can hardly hold honesty against them. When was the last time the Cubs made a good move?

No, not yet, probably not ever I'm guessing.

I read somewhere that he went back to a lower arm angle this year like he had in college. From my understanding, the Mets had him throwing a lot more over the top prior to this season. Once he went back to his preivous arm angle, the movement came back. He was very good out of the bullpen this year. Indeed. His split from this year... As Starter, 42 IP, 38 H, 5 HR, 13 BB, 34 K, 4.71 ERA As Reliever, 66 IP, 49 H, 1 HR, 24 BB, 72 K, 2.18 ERA Also, his splits as a reliever... May 5th, 3.1 IP, 1 H, 0 HR, 1 BB, 5 K, 0.00 ERA (0 ER) May 15th to June 21st, 13 IP, 12 H, 0 HR, 1 BB, 13 K, 0.00 ERA (0 ER) June 22nd to ASB, 9.2 IP, 12 H, 0 HR, 4 BB, 9 K, 12.10 ERA (13 ER) ASB to August 29th, 19.2 IP, 17 H, 1 HR, 5 BB, 24 K, 0.92 ERA (2 ER) August 30th to END, 20.1 IP, 7 H, 0 HR, 13 BB, 21 K, 0.44 ERA (1 ER) So he consistently struck a lot of people out, his control was consistently good until the last part of the season, when he may have been tired, having already thrown 87.2 innings by August 30th, he consistently didn't allow home runs, and pretty much all of the earned runs that he did allow as a reliever came in a spell that lasted just a little more than two weeks. Strange, that.

Heilman has filthy movement on his fastball.

A very very quick Google search throws up this... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/11/06/SP149861.DTL That's from after 2002. Probably meaningless, but not particularly encouraging. Baker personally received his NL Championship ring for 2002 from Sabean and Colletti along with Tom Goodwin and Ramon Martinez went the Cubs were playing in SF the next year. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2309 and http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2310 BP Q&A with Colletti from Sept 2003 Another probably trivial piece of info - Colletti and Greg Maddux are very good friends.

This the the main reason, I am not that interested in acquiring Wilkerson. We have a very similar ballplayer in Matt Murton is, IMO, will be the better player in less then 2 yrs. I just don't like tweeners players like Wilkerson. Bat not good enough for a corner, but not adequately tolerable in CF on defense. This is the reason I am more interested in Pierre. I wouldn't mind Wilkerson, but only if they can't land anybody better. I'd say Wilkerson's defence in CF is tolerable. By the way, Pierre's defence is just as bad as Wilkerson's. Pierre can run fast, sure. Very fast. But don't mistake that with him having a lot of range. Pierre doesn't read the ball off the bat at all well, he takes too many ill-advised routes and his arm is atrocious. All in all, Pierre too is no better than tolerable out there. Defence is not a reason to pick Pierre over Wilkerson. Oh, and Pierre hardly has enough bat to play CF, yet alone an outfield corner.

It's a good thing the Cubs don't care about the K. I know what you mean, but the Cubs have every right to care about the K. Everyone should care about the K. Every K taken on its own hurts production through the suppression of AVG, which in turn suppresses the all-important OBP and SLG numbers. The K is a bad thing. The K is always a bad thing. However, the K is not always the product of sheer incompetence with the bat, it is often the by-product of an approach at the plate that brings more positives than the resulting K's bring negatives. Consider for instance players that work deep into counts and so draw lots of walks, and players that swing hard and so hit for a lot of power, and players that do both - all are as a result more susceptible to the K. And the K is still a bad thing. It's just the BB and the XBH etc are good things, and when you look at the totality of the picture, you're better off with a package of K, BB and XBH than you are with a hitter like Juan Pierre, whose OBP and SLG are suppressed not by K's, but by the fact he doesn't walk much and never hits for power. It's this that the Cubs need to realise. Regarding Pierre, his game is entirely based on his BABIP (from which his AVG takes its lead). And BABIP from day to day, month to month, year to year, gets itself all over the place, it's the thing that's seemingly most beyond the control of the hitter. So Pierre is much more likely to suffer up and down years than most other players, despite his talent never really changing - he's just a slap-happy punchless impatient hitter that can run fast but doesn't really field his position well, and that hasn't changed since he first made the majors, and unless he gets injured, that's not likely to change for a while yet either. What does change is just that BABIP -- .341 in 2001 (Coors), .312 in 2002 (Coors), .320 in 2003, .340 in 2004, .293 in 2005. In truth, with his speed, Pierre ought to find it pretty much impossible to hit much lower than .293 on balls in play, so in theory he shouldn't be any worse than 2005 for a while to come. And I don't see a huge amount stopping Pierre from having a year with a BABIP of .340/.350+ besides the relative number of PAs he gets a year relative to most other players (as a leadoff man that plays everyday, he's seeing way over 700 PAs a year), because players can get on rolls where everything drops in for hits and have the season end before the sample size catches up with their numbers. The trouble is that you really have no idea from year to year where that BABIP will go. If it's only .290, Pierre is practically useless. If it's .350, he's very useful. And if it's halfway in between, around his career average of .322 (which is right where you'd expect it to be, incidentally), he's merely okay as long as his defence doesn't deteriorate. Where will his BABIP be this year, then? He could be worth trading for, for one year only. He could be thoroughly useless. Who knows? That's the trouble with acquiring Pierre.

If Wilkerson is at all available, Hendry had better be all over it. From August 11th onwards, Wilkerson was severly troubled by a sore right shoulder, requiring repeat cortisone shots. He hit just .231/.337/.372 in the final 39 games of the season. He also suffered right forearm and right hand injuries earlier in the season. And he was playing half his games in an extremely friendly pitcher's park, with a big chunk of the other half in the likes of Shea, Pro Player and Turner Field. There is a significant case then for Wilkerson's 2005 numbers hugely understating his actual ability. In other words, buy low. And remember Jim Bowden's obsession with toolsy outfielders! That's sadly not to say that Wilkerson isn't a .250 hitter. He simply strikes out too much to sustain anything much above that at all. However, it is to say that Wilkerson in future can reasonably be expected to hit for his typical .370+ on-base percentage, and that he does possess significantly more power than he exhibited this last year. He is at the very least a 20 homer guy, if not 25+. Wilkerson's defence is not a plus. He's not that fast and his range isn't particularly good. The fact that he possesses a very strong arm is useful, but nothing more than that. All in all, he's much more suited to a corner outfield spot, though he's probably still just about passable in centre. The trouble with playing him at an outfield corner is that he bat all of a sudden becomes a whole lot less valuable. The trouble with putting him in centre is that you are sacrificing quite a bit of defence, particularly compared to Corey Patterson. He's not a perfect ballplayer at all then. But I'd still put him in centre and bat him leadoff myself while forgiving him the catching the ball bit, if we could get him for a decent price. Wilkerson is two years away from free agency, and is probably due a bit of a rise in arbitration, maybe to $4m+ a year (from $3.05m last year). The Nationals have Jose Guillen in RF, Nick Johnson at 1B and they seemingly think Ryan Church good enough to play both LF and CF. Besides Wilkerson, the Nationals' only other outfield options are Marlon Byrd (not very good at all, but Bowden seems to like him), Preston Wilson (almost certainly departing via FA), Brandon Watson (singles-hitting contact-first base-stealing CF, hit an empty .355 at AAA in 372 AB in 2005 aged 24, might be an option), Terrmel Sledge (coming off big hamstring injury, not that good anyway, Nats seem to know that since they were shopping him before he got injured) and Tyrell Godwin (hit an interesting .321/.387/.443 at AAA this year, but I doubt the Nats even consider him an option, he's 26 after all). And the CF market this winter is not particularly great. So they'd find it hard to replace Wilkerson. All the same, there's talk out of Washington that the Nats are getting fed up with him striking out so much. Which is always good to hear, I guess, if it means we can take him on board at all, if not cheaply. But I doubt it. Hendry had better be all over it.

Sorry, Derrek, but you need to have an OPS higher than 5.000 to win the award.

But more often than not, Furcal won't even be on base, so Pierre could just try and slap one through the hole. Yeah, because Furcal puts up such awful OBAs from year-to-year. I didn't say that. But somebody said Furcal would get on every time. He's only a .350 OBP guy. His addition doesn't cure all woes. Giles would cure a whole lot more. Dusty' boy Nefi mentioned him getting on base 2-3 times over 5 at-bats... And Neifi knows all there is to know about hitting...

Just out of interest, what are your inputs for working that out? Or what's your source if you didn't do it yourself?

Indeed. The boxscore doesn't mention a lot of things, and not all of the unmentioned things understate a player's value. Consider fielding, for instance - a player with rubbish range doesn't get an error for not getting to the ball... That's a fair enough point. The idea of the breakeven point is that the player attempts steals according to an average distribution of situations. There are situations when stealing a base is more of a risk and less of a risk, when there's more of a reward and less of a reward. And there's no guarantee that over the course of a certain number of attempts, the risk and reward will overall be in line with the average. All the same, my guess is that Podsednik isn't clever enough, or good enough, to only steal when it really matters, and only get caught stealing when it doesn't, or whatever. But I don't really know. Therefore, really, it was wrong of me to even bring up the concept of the breakeven point. But the ball is on your court as to the value of Podsednik's steals. You're the one that brought them up. So you find out just how valuable they were, and then get back to me... Get a Podsednik game log, note the SBs and CSs, pull up the boxscore and play-by-play for each one, work out the bases/out situation. Use a run expentency matrix such as this one here --- http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html --- and work out the run value of each attempt, positive and negative. Add them up, and give me a number. So, if Podsednik tried to steal 1st/0 outs, and made it, meaning 2nd/0 outs, the number of runs that he'd have added via the steal would be 1.189 (run value of 2nd/0 outs) minus 0.953 (run value of 1st/0 outs), or 0.236 runs. Of course, there are still problems with this. 1) The data upon which the Run Expectancy Matrix is based is old (99-02), and the run environment isn't quite the same today. 2) Again we're talking situational averages in terms of the run value - but a steal of 2nd with 1st/0 outs on a 0-0 count when down by 1 run is a lot more valuable than than the same steal with the same base/out situation only when you're winning by 7 and the count is 3-0. And 3) it's not park or lineup or anything adjusted, it's just the average across all of baseball. All the same, this ought to give you something of an estimate, something a whole lot more reliable than your "bet" that Podsednik conveniently only gets CS when it doesn't matter, or whatever... You still haven't explained this to me. 2004: 865 runs, 5.34 runs per game, standard deviation of 3.77 runs 2005: 741 runs, 4.57 runs per game, standard deviation of 2.89 runs Yes, the 2005 Sox were more consistent at scoring runs, in other words, but the 2004 Sox scored an awful lot more runs. What leads you to believe that the difference in standard deviation of 0.88 is more valuable than the difference in the opposite direction of 124 runs over the course of the season? If you want to make a case for the 2005 offence being better, you're going to have to do a whole lot better a job than you're doing right now. What would be interesting actually would be the standard deviation in runs scored per inning (as opposed to runs scored per game). Perhaps the 2005 White Sox were able to grind out individual runs a lot more frequently, as opposed to waiting for the big inning as they maybe did in 2004. If you want to go ahead and prove that, feel free.

Except Podsednik hit .290/.351/.349, Iguchi .278/.342/.438. Between them they stole 74 bases, and were caught 28 times (73%, marginally above the breakeven point). Both played above average defence, though in Podsednik's case you're talking about LF, where defence doesn't matter hugely. For the pair of them to be "big reasons" for the team's success, all that "causing havoc on the bases" and "bunts/swinging bunts" stuff (and whatever else you haven't mentioned but have ready to go as an insurance policy when your other "plate patience" etc arguments are flamed) must have an enormous amount of value. Unfortunately there's absolutely nothing besides the ramblings of sportswriters/broadcasters to suggest that that's true. The truth is that Podsednik and Iguchi weren't big reasons, they were just serviceable parts that plugged positions that otherwise could have been holes. That has value, sure. Not that much though. So now they couldn't have won it all without the big ball and they couldn't have won it all without the pitching, in your own words. Jeez, just how important then was all this smart-ball then that Iguchi and Podsednik played?

Because he's 27 years old, has hit .290/.379/.463 over the last three years (in pitcher's ballparks no less) and plays a well above average centre field, a position where we have considerable room for improvement. Furthermore, the Dodgers are giving him away. Certainly Bradley isn't the perfect ballplayer. He's been injured more than you'd like, he does have personality issues, his power is considerable but not prodigious, his plate discipline isn't perfect. All the same, he is in my opinion the best CF option out there (improvement over what we have now relative to cost in resources), assuming of course that Baker deserves his reputation as a good player's manager. If that proves untrue, then at least Bradley ought to be the final nail in Dusty's coffin, seeing as there's absolutely nothing else Mr. Toothpick's particularly good at.

Isn't that lucky for your argument! Ooops, so I just made something up, or, more specifically, repeated the ESPN mantra, turns out it wasn't true, so now I'll just go and base it on one inning in one game in the playoffs, or maybe the playoffs as a whole, in which the White Sox played the grand total of 12 games. Except as a whole the White Sox drew 36 walks in 474 playoff PAs (or one walk every 13.2 trips to the plate). During the regular season they drew 435 walks in 6146 PAs (or one every 14.1 trips to the plate). Wait a minute, that means that they walked more often in the playoffs! Woohoo! Your argument is right! Er, hardly. Had the White Sox walked just 34 times in the playoffs, they'd have been right where they were at in the regular season. So you're basically arguing that 2 walks over 12 games means that the White Sox were more patient. Could it not just be that the opposing pitchers were just more wild? Or perhaps that the sample size is such a joke that it's not even worth considering those 2 walks as any kind of evidence that the White Sox were more patient in the playoffs? The difference is statistically insignificant. Except that's also not true. The White saw 3.74 pitches per plate appearance in the playoffs. Meanwhile they saw 3.76 pitchers per plate appearance in the 2005 regular season. You'll never guess how many they saw in the 2004 regular season! Yes, 3.76. So the White Sox were exactly as good, or bad, at seeing loads of pitches per plate appearance and thus wearing all the pitchers down in 2005 as they in the playoffs and as they were the year before. Stats do account for that. And the stats say that the White Sox were no different in taking pitches in the playoffs as they were in 2005 as they were in 2004. Stats also say that the White Sox walked a whole lot less in 2005 than they did in 2004. So does anything else define plate patience, or has your imagination run out of lies to dream up? So you're arguing that the difference between the 2004 and 2005 White Sox was that Tadahito Iguchi hit more balls to the second baseman? Big difference. I dunno. I always got this impression that baseball was a team game, and that you required a number of members of the team to combine to score, you know, runs, and lots of them. Strangely, the White Sox didn't score lots of them. They scored a lot less. 124 less than the year before. Yes, they scored more consistently, a standard deviation of 2.89 in 2005 as opposed to 3.73 in 2004, but does that compensate for 124 less runs? Highly debatable. What's not debatable is that their pitching improved from 2004 to 2005 enormously, and that was by far the biggest contributing factor to their success. By far.

I like what the Cubs get in this deal. The Phillies compensation looks a bit light though. The Cubs would have to part with more than CPatt and Hill. Philly is looking for a #1 or #2 starter in return for Abreu. Something that the Cubs won't be able to give Philly. Besides, I don't think CF is a dire need for PHL. They can go with a platoon of Jason Michaels and Lofton (should they choose to resign him). If something along the lines of Cano/Wang for Abreu has been aired by the Phillies, and turned down by the Yankees, and a Vernon Wells for Abreu flip been discussed too, and rejected by the BlueJays, I don't think Pierre/Hill is that lousy an offer. And I have no doubt the Phillies wish for an ace starter, but that doesn't fit with them reportedly targetting the likes of Wang. Or maybe the Newsday report was just made up. I don't know. I agree with you Diffusion, and what's up with that? I either over value Abreu, or you gotta question the Yanks and Blue Jays for turning that down. It's a lot of money, but both teams have it. The Phillies could quite easily be looking at the fact that Abreu's going to be 32 by the time next season starts, that he hit just .260/.376/.411 after the All-Star Break this year (with a mere 6 HR and 10 SB in 15 attempts), that he has $31.2m/2yrs left on his contract, and that it's better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late. To be entirely honest, while I'd trust Abreu's track record enough to trade for him, I can't say that the Phillies' position on this is particularly crazy, though I think it's far too honest. With a trade chip like Abreu, you should be able to demand above and beyond what the player's really worth, and that does mean a top of the rotation starter. Publicly at least, the Phillies should be trying to keep up the pretence of demanding an ace. Interestingly, and somewhat relevantly, Thome was aged 34 going into 2005, he'd hit .253/.384/.484 in the second half of 2004 and he had $66.66m/4yrs left on his deal. All the same, had the Phillies put Thome on the market, I'm entirely sure the Mets at the very least would have bitten (remember, they were interested in Delgado, but lost out to him to the Marlins, and instead settled for Mientkiewicz, and we all know how that went...), doubtless offering far too much in the process. A year later, and the first base situation in Philly is a mess, so much so the Phillies are considering moving Ryan Howard, who was every bit as ready for the majors last winter as he was when he eventually did step in, just because they can't move Thome. Perhaps the Phillies have learnt some kind of a lesson and don't want to end up with a similar situation in RF... Anyway, my point is that, given everything I've heard in the press, the reliability of which I obviously cannot vouch for, I think the Phillies would seriously consider an offer of Pierre and Hill for Abreu. I don't think the Phillies view Michaels as more than a fourth outfielder (albeit a great one), they'd be very wise not to bring back Lofton, and Pierre would offer in my opinion (but perhaps not the Phillies') a vastly overrated but still decent CF "solution". Meanwhile Rich Hill seems to be widely admired, in that his name pops up in trade talks all the time and every time Hendry says "no way", but I can't myself see why. Yes, he has a great curveball, a truly great curveball, but he sets that up with an average at best fastball and he hasn't got a third-pitch good enough for the majors. Sure, he could develop one, but he's 26 already, so why hasn't he already developed one? Because he can't? My suspicion is that Hill will never be an effective major league starter, and therefore the Cubs should move him now before other people figure that out. And, let's suppose I'm wrong. How much are we going to miss Hill even if he does make it? It's not as if he's even pencilled in for a rotation spot next year!

I like what the Cubs get in this deal. The Phillies compensation looks a bit light though. The Cubs would have to part with more than CPatt and Hill. Philly is looking for a #1 or #2 starter in return for Abreu. Something that the Cubs won't be able to give Philly. Besides, I don't think CF is a dire need for PHL. They can go with a platoon of Jason Michaels and Lofton (should they choose to resign him). If something along the lines of Cano/Wang for Abreu has been aired by the Phillies, and turned down by the Yankees, and a Vernon Wells for Abreu flip been discussed too, and rejected by the BlueJays, I don't think Pierre/Hill is that lousy an offer. And I have no doubt the Phillies wish for an ace starter, but that doesn't fit with them reportedly targetting the likes of Wang. Or maybe the Newsday report was just made up. I don't know.

Sounds to me that 1) the Phillies are looking for CF and SP help, plus salary relief, and 2) the Cubs are close to acquiring Pierre for something like a Patterson + pitcher deal. Combine the two and I think you get... Phillies get: Juan Pierre, Rich Hill Cubs get: Bobby Abreu, maybe some cash from Phillies Marlins get: Corey Patterson, Sergio Mitre Trade for Milton Bradley, who can apparently be had for next to nothing, keep Walker and then continue the Furcal chase or make amends with Nomar, and the Cubs could end up with an offensively sensational... C Barrett 1B Lee 2B Walker 3B Ramirez SS Nomar/Furcal LF Murton CF Bradley RF Abreu ...and the pitching pretty much intact. The only real problem is that that's still a pretty poor defensive team.

When should the Cubs have traded Dubois?

Say that again, this time with a straight face.