RynoRules

Bobby Hill is most similar at age 27 to Patsy Gharrity. :shock: I hope that's a dude. :D I guess its 20-20 hindsite, but I am not positive that Hill is/was a head-and-shoulders better pro than Harris was in 03'. Plus, sending him back down to the minors may have allowed him to maintain his value enough such that the Ramirez-Lofton deal got done. Had he languished on the bench in Chicago, his value might have dropped. Its probably too close to call. In Grissom's case, there seem to be better options.

I was thinking about that; it may be a faulty comparison. Who was Harris in competition with for the last roster spot; in other words who got cut or sent AAA in favor of Harris that year? May be Harris was the better option or it was "six of one, half-dozen of the other".

Yeah, and his last good year against lefties was 2004. The last time before that was 2003. The last time before that was 2002... and so on. In posting that link I am assuming that Grissom will be seeing more than just lefties. Hope I am wrong. By the way, we now have: Pierre Jacque, and Marquis We're french, and we're fried.

Just in case the above wasn't disconcerting enough, note that Grissom's last good year was in 1996: http://www.baseballreference.com/g/grissma02.shtml

I think the smart money is that Grissom and Mabry see nearly as many at bats in left as Murton. I'd love to refute that notion, but if history is any guide, you might be right. :getyou: :getyou: :getyou: :getyou: :getyou: :getyou: :getyou: :getyou:

Schnikies

I understand that you bring in bench guys b/c, by definition, they shouldn't be starting, and thus you should not expect oo much from them. And normally, I would not even blink at this signing. But if Dusty uses Grisson instead of Murton, I'll blow my top.

We can always count on you, Vance. If anything, I'm dependable. Now that just got me out of my first-day-back doldrums. Thanks, Vance.

Please be true. He could do well down there if he tends to pull the ball. Does he?

I agree with Cacique and Diffusiuon on this. I am not particularly upset about it, I just don't get it. It makes little sense. May be JH is jealous that SF has an all-AARP outfield and is trying to catch up? :huh:

:-& :-k

Yeah. Someone explain to me what the big deal is?

Lets just hope she's right.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board. yes, a frightening world full of casual fans that thought neifi was our savior last year. i'll take the opinions of pretty much anyone that i respect on this board over conventional wisdom. the people that i talk to about baseball outside of this board have no idea what they are talking about, it's often painful to listen to them and have to hold my tongue or not roll my eyes. "So, Juan Pierre's the best leadoff man in the game, eh? Ya don't say?" Arrogance alert, arrogance alert. Go get a job in baseball and educate people about how smart you are and about how dumb everyone is who doesn't agree with you. Or instead you can stay in front of your computer monitor and pontificate for the rest of your life. arrogance-schmarrogance, i just find it hard to listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about. Wow. And how do we identify who those people are? Just b/c he/she does not believe in the same methedology as you?

I think it really is sickening the way that people threw him under the bus after one lousy 2004 season. Yes, he had a bad year. But, that should not have offset how many great years he gave us. I think it was shameful how the organization treated him on the way out. One bad season should not erase the many, many great ones he had for us. I don't think many folks "threw under the bus" b/c he did not play well in 04'. At least that's not why I was (am) upset with him (see above).

:?:

I don't see how he could be had on the cheap considering how much he cost earlier this offseason. Not to mention he's going to get paid around 10m for 06. Points taken; my thought was that Bowden's desperation to be rid of him (plus his salary) could drive the price down.

Is it ok to not like Steve Alford for allowing a man convicted of rape to continue to play? This is a legitimate question. And I liked Sammy when he was here, but he hurt nobody but himself with his actions in his latter years. My "sympathy meter" isn't bleeding for him. the alford/pierce incident is totally different. rape and being perceived as lacking moral character are 2 different things. i wasn't asking you to have sympathy for sammy. if he committed a heineous crime, i wouldn't want him on the team. he did nothing more than ruin some casual fan's dream of the altruistic superstar and the perfect clubhouse atmosphere. why should i care about that? what i care about is the production he gave the cubs in the middle of the order. And its certainly your perogative and right to feel that way. I hope you undetrstand that some of us feel differently. I do not, at my age, believe that these guys are in any way perfect. Their personal lives are their own; they make mistakes just like you and I. So long as they stay within the bounds of decency in that regard, I try not to judge them in that area. That said, I do expect that they will conduct themselves with a degree of professionalism (just as I am expected to in my role as an attny). Sammy committed (in my estimation) a highly insubordinate and unprofessional act. I lost a great degree of respect for him as result, and it was doubley unfortunate in light of the fact that he was so productive for so long. EDIT: And I am hardly a casual fan.

\\\ Pretty much sums up my feelings, except that I felt taken advantage of towards the end. I (we) supported him through many issues (allegations of 'roids, corks, etc.), but the "Game 162" incident was the straw that broke my back.

I am not a huge fan of Soriano, but if he can be had on the cheap, I would not mind him hitting fifth.

Well ain't that a great logic. Its obviously not an overly developed argument, but I think Vance's point is that JVB did not have a place on this club b/c he projects as a middle reliever, so why allow him to languish in the minors where his value is likely to go down? If that was Vance's point, and it wasn't, then I wouldn't have disagreed with it. Van Buren could easily fashion for himself a decent career as a major league middle reliever, and the fact that he's got three option years left and will be cheap for a while makes him potentially pretty useful. At the same time, Van Buren wasn't going to make the club next year after the Howry and Eyre signings, injuries not withstanding, and the Cubs aren't exactly short of very good stuff guys with control problems anyway. As a result, you're talking about a very good trading chip - someone worth more to other teams than he's worth to you. He's not worth that much to us in the minor leagues, is he? And had he ever cracked our bullpen, he'd have been right at the very back of it, not worth that much to us there either. He's the kind of guy you can throw in to seal a big deal for an impact player. You take a look at some of the bullpens around the league and you put Van Buren in some of them and he's one of the better relievers. Look for instance at the Orioles' bullpen. Or the Phillies'. Or the Reds'. You know exactly who I'm thinking about. Instead the Cubs cut bait with him before they had a chance to put together a deal simply because Hendry doesn't know how to effectively put a 40-man roster together. Alone, one relatively small squandered opportunity cost isn't going to hurt us too much. The trouble is that with Hendry this kind of thing is typical, and put together Hendry's inability over the last few years to maximise the return on the pitching in the system has hugely hampered this organisation. Actually, I'd say Van Buren is a pretty unique kind of player. He has excellent stuff, but absolutely awful mechanics that lead to moderate control problems. His numbers over the last two years are staggeringly dominant: 123 innings, 67 hits allowed, 8 home runs allowed, 147 strikeouts, 1.98 ERA. Triple-A relief pitcher of the year for 2005 as named by Baseball America. Dime-a-dozen I really don't think is an applicable expression here. Sure, he's a long, long way from a top prospect. But no-one's arguing he's a top prospect. No-one's even arguing as though he's a top prospect. Compare, for instance, the Sisco backlash last year to the Van Buren backlash this year, and there isn't a comparison. That's about as stupid as arguments come. He did a bad job this way, but at least he's now doing a bad job in a more "proactive" way! Not to mention that trading a player because you forced yourself to have to cut someone because you messed the 40-man roster up is a lot of things, but "proactive" is not one of them. You kind of made my point for me. I acknowledged that he has messed up the 40-man by not dealing away these mid-level guys earlier. I am, at least, glad to see that he is trying to fix that issue, even if its a season too late. Moreover, IMO, we have a greater need for position-player depth than middle reliever depth. As such, I don't have a big problem with this deal. May be JVB will set the world on fire, but its far more likely that he won't. And thanks for calling me "stupid", BTW.

There was speculation, yes. The facts appear to be that the O's asked for Prior or Z, and the Cubs have balked at that demand. Most are speculating now that the Cubs have offered a package of prospects, but the O's did not want it (at least initially). Rogers initimated as much in this morning's Trib. He also opined that whatever the least sensible deal is, the O's will likely do it.

Well ain't that a great logic. Its obviously not an overly developed argument, but I think Vance's point is that JVB did not have a place on this club b/c he projects as a middle reliever, so why allow him to languish in the minors where his value is likely to go down? I think we are overreacting a bit to this news. JVB's not a Pie talent. IMO, this type of player is a dime-a-dozen. I like him; I like Leicester. But not enough to kill JH for how he handled them. I have long argued that JH allows our mid-level and some of our upper-level prospects to languish in the minors for too long, thus exposing their worts and driving down their value. At least he's being a little bit more proactive now. (NOTE: I thought he overpaid for Pierre, however)

In substitution for who? I mean, normally I'd agree, but we have it on good authority (see above) that Murton will be the starting LFer. That makes me happy. If they want to bring Grissom in to PH and be a defensive replacement for Matty in the 9th, I am OK with that (I think).

We have enough of those types; I am glad JH is trying to build some position-player depth.