RynoRules

If you think the fans here were tough on him... The Sox must have realized that.

Could we all take it easy and get back on topic? I thought I saw Bruce Miles say that Gary has brought more of an OBP-centric approach via the way the Cubs examine and evaluate pitchers. Sounds pretty progressive.

If Randle-El is the type of player you're looking for, just draft Brad Smith. No thanks. The window will be closing on the Bears within two or three years, and Smith is raw. I'd prefer a vet WR; we have other projects (Bradley, Berrian, etc.). And you wouldn't be biased, would you?

Holy.... :pukel:

this is pretty much how i feel too. i'd love to have hughes around if there was a comparable advisor on the statistical side and both worked directly underneath a general manager who gave credence to both stats and scouts. i dont think we have that though. Fair points all. And the lack of balance in the front office is evident.

Agreed. If he picthes well, the pen is very deep.

How is Williams surplus when he's the 3rd best SP with Wood hurt? I agree - Williams is hardly surplus. He's probably better than Maddux at this point, and at least he's healthy compared to Wood. Moreover, Kearns isn't worth it for anyone we value, IMO. He's no better than Murton at this point, and we have 3 "ok" OFers already. Dunn or Abreu, please. For them, Williams is tradeable. Though I'd prefer to deal Pie and Hill.

Not from me, I'm right there with you. I'd rather keep Williams and Murton than Pie and Hill, for many reasons. You're more likely to get an impact player for Pie/Hill, Murton/Williams are more suited to contributing right now, which is our window while Z, Prior, Aramis and Lee are relatively young and under contract. Plus, I think in 25 years Murton will be the better OF, and I think Williams is criminally undervalued. I'm not sure we can wait that long on Murton. :lmao:

Agree with both, but where would Marte play? 2B?

I guess I'd rather deal Pie and Hill than give up Matty, Williams, et al. I am preparing to get savaged for that one.

Who cares? Have you seen his OBP? :wink:

Based on the fact that they are willing to take Rhodes, I would think Rusch is is just as attractive b/c he can start as well. But what do I know; the whole makes little sense.

Sign me up. I just can't believe that Philly would do it.

Hope not. Right now Murton, IMO, has as much potential for production as Kearns does.

Getting back on topic now that the attacks seem to have ended, I think this is a great deal for the Tribe, assuming that they have the bullpen depth to cover for the loss.

As who promised? Some NSBB folks? Rhodes is a respectable arm that Philly needs. Michaels is a spare bench player. Rhodes, like all relievers, is inconsistant. Michaels is a spare bench player with a .380 career OBP. If the Cubs had a lineup full of "spare bench players," they'd have one of the better offenses in the league. The fact that the Phillies are settling on Arthor Rhodes for Michaels, tells you the value Jason Michaels has around baseball. He couldn't beat out the likes of Glanville, Ledee, and Bryd, for goodness sakes. And that decision making got the Phillies what? A new GM? So Jason Michaels is the reason Wade and Bowa aren't there any longer? My mistake; I missed that. And I resent your statement, BTW. I brought up an issue that I disagree with Tiger on. I don't see how that's any different from what others here do.

You're the first person to say this. I'll say this, maybe Michaels does have some glaring deficiency that none of us have noticed, but maybe he doesnt, and the upshot is that he is better than Juan Pierre (hell, better than most CF in baseball), and all it costs to find out is Arthur Rhodes. Forgive me, but I can't tell if you're serious or if this is sarcasm. :-k A number of posters have pointed this out. I did. And I do not think that everyone here thinks they are smarter than MLB GMs. I do think some people fall in love with players. Its understandble; I do too. For instance, I still love Henry Cotto.

As who promised? Some NSBB folks? Rhodes is a respectable arm that Philly needs. Michaels is a spare bench player. Rhodes, like all relievers, is inconsistant. Michaels is a spare bench player with a .380 career OBP. If the Cubs had a lineup full of "spare bench players," they'd have one of the better offenses in the league. The fact that the Phillies are settling on Arthor Rhodes for Michaels, tells you the value Jason Michaels has around baseball. He couldn't beat out the likes of Glanville, Ledee, and Bryd, for goodness sakes. And that decision making got the Phillies what? A new GM? So Jason Michaels is the reason Wade and Bowa aren't there any longer?

If they end up with Clemens, Millwood, and Padilla along with Eaton in that rotation combined with their offense, they may have a division winner. Damn - you stole my thought. If Clemens can still pitch and Eaton does not explode at tthe sight of Arlington (as opposed to pitcher-friendly SD), look out Halos and A's.

I agree. When Hairston mentioned working out with Olympic sprinters this winter....I like Todd Walker don't get me wrong, but I think Hairston might be the best #2 hitter and 2B. A .370 OBP from Hairston wouldn't be unprecedented either... I said it some where; I would love to see Jerry get a full-time shot, especially at Neifi's expense. If we can get something of value for Walker and Jerry puts up .290/.350 and plays a solid 2B, its a win-win.

I think that JH may have been blowing smoke here. I just cannot imagine going to camp in a month or so with all three of those guys.

That makes a lot of sense for Piazza, and is a classic Yankee risk. I am very anxious to see how he does now that he will be able to concetrate on hitting full-time.

Low risk, high reward ratio. OK w/ me.

2001 Miller > 2005 Ponson 2006 Miller = Allen Benes Alright!! Enough in-fighting! Bring on the Cards fans!!! :D :wink:

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic. Its not really. Its the role he's been for years with the Phils. Could n't they be right and/or know something we don't? My point isn't that Michaels is not an attractive optiion; he is. Its that it just does not make sense that he hasn't been used more often or traded to a team that recognizes his potential. If we "know" it, why hasn;t someone else picked up on it? Lot's of things in life don't make sense. Why did the Cubs sign a back-up SS to a 2.5 million dollar contract? Is your point that Michaels' situation doesn't make sense? If so, I agree. Which leads me back to my original point; the sensible thing would be one of the following: 1) Play the guy every day; or 2) trade for him and play him every day. It sure does not make sense that neither of these things has happened. Therefore, its reasonable to think there is something about him we do not have knowledge of. Its possible that there isn't, but there's enough evidence, IMO, to suggest that there is. You have to understand that this is a weak argument though. When you first found out about Michaels, did you first see why he got the playing time he did? Of course not, most(if not all) people rightly look at performance first. This is a case of moving way down the list of things that you can find wrong in a player, and making inferences about the player based on situations out of his control, and under control of inept management. And you have to understand that I disagree with your assessment. Just b/c you disagree doesn't mean that my argument is weak. I don't know why you believe that. You appear to be to so focused on the stats that you are missing the bigger story. Nine time out of ten, when a player's stats indicate what Michaels do they either play or are traded to someone who will allow them to play. Michaels is now 30, a relatively advanced age for a baseball player (at least in terms of identifying potential), yet - as discussed ad nauseam above - he has not played consistently and has not been traded to someone who will use him every day. To me, this means there is more to the story; and its perfectly reasonable to think so. Note that this does not mean that I am "right" and you are "wrong". We are both potentially "right" on this issue. The point is that they are both valid points of view. The notion that the stats tell the whole story - especially here where the stats stand in opposition to the reality - is ignorant of other reasonable possibilities.