RynoRules

Note that the Cubs did not make the playoffs in any of the above noted years. Just win, baby.

No kidding.

This Jones thing harkens bac to Dusty's days with the Giants. He won with less than impressive players in SF, so he thinks he can do it again here. (of course, the big difference being that no one of Bonds' ilk bats in our lineup). Take a look at these stats: 2002 Giants: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/2002.shtml And look at the OBPs on the 2000 version: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/2000.shtml 1997: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/1997.shtml He's coaxing ridiculous seasons from the likes of Marvin Benard and on-his-last-legs Ellis Burks. Looks like Dusty has a high opinion of his ability to squeeze water from a stone. :pukel:

Yea, I think we do not have to worry about Mabry getting starts. That said, if after all of this nonsense we wind up with Jacque Jones in RF, I will jump on the Fire Jim Hendry BandWGN. But I am willing to wait and see what shakes out.

Exactly. That's why I'd be careful assigning all the credit to sabermetrics. That's not to say that it wasn't a big help, but I'd be wary of absolutes...in anything...

Paulie!! Paulie!! Paulie!! :bowdown:

I think its every bit as bad. the difference is the subtleties. everyone in the world can see when one team is hammering the other in the paint without foul calls, while there are touch fouls called on the other end. with home plate umpiring, it's often times a matter of 1/2 of an inch, and what is outrageous is the media encourages it. "well Roger Clemens is going to get that pitch called. the batter needs to take a hack" or "if you're around the plate all the time, you're going :thumleft: matter if it's Pujols in the ninth at Coors and the tieing runner is on. a strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. (you know what I'm talking about Card fans.) Not really. Who specifically on the Cards do you think gets preferential strike zone treatment? Although I find it highly distastefull, I have to agree with the Card fan here. :D I don't like the fact that the strike zone is whatever the ump behind the plate says it is. But I also don't think they give breaks to the all-stars either. I think they do the best job they can and they make mistakes. I would love to see a machine used to call balls and strikes like they have in tennis. While were at it, lets replace the managers with IBM Thinkpads, seeing as stats are all that you really need. That's a bit of overkill, IMO.

Exactly why I asked the question that I did: What is Philly doing here? What's Gillick up to? I wonder if he has 40-man issues as well now that he has the two pitchers he got in the Thome deal?

Is there anyone at all who fits those parameters and is available? Manny. Abreu Dunn I'll take any of the 3 (or all of them, preferably :jocolor: :afro: )

What does it say about what the Phils are doing? I'm actually surprised they traded Padilla considering when healthy he is probably their best pitcher. I don't know exactly what it does say possibly rebuild a bit? who knows. I guess I am just hoping it means tha Gillik is clearing the cupboard and Abreu is available for less than Prior. :pig:

What does it say about what the Phils are doing?

I'd rather have Tejada for this reason: If we have Tejada, we have one of the best offensive players in the game at a position that is lacking good offensive players. With Tejada, we can go out and afford Milton Bradley, those positions would offset and we'd have one of the best lineups in baseball. In my opinion Tejada+Bradley is better than Abreu+Cedeno. I pretty much agree with the above.

I did not realize his nos. were that good. Still, I'd rather have a greater impact bat out there, if at all possible.

Anyone else seriously wonder if anyone in the Cubs office does anything remotely scientific like this in trade evaluations? I know that Gary Hughes isn't the most enamored with metric evaluations of players. The Cubs front office is mostly made up of scouts, old school baseball guys. I'm sure there's someone who brings a statisctical background/viewpoint to the table, but I'm not sure how much of an influence they have. I know tha you are not saying Hughes never looks at metric stats, but Mr. Miles has said that Hughes weighs them heavily. Whether that plays out or not...

Wrong, especially for middle infielders. Peak is 27. There is some variance in either direction, maybe 26 or 28 here and there. Regardless, Tejada has peaked, and will be getting worse in his 30's. He'll still be good, but not as good as he was before. I completely diagree with that assessment, especially since athletes take much better care of themselves than they have in years past. I would bet that MIFers in the upper echelon (such as Jeter and Kent, and historically, Ryno and Ozzie Smith, as examples) either maintained or increased their production as they entered their thirties (i.e., 30-34). Point is that Tejada cannot be judged against the statiscal trends of the Neifi Perezs of the world. he's head-and-shoulders above that level, and if he has 4 or 5 more seasons like the last few, is highley likely to be an HOFer. Disagree all you want, it's been proven time and time again. The rare exceptions, Bonds, only prove the rule. Tejada has already peaked, he's not going to get any better, and he will start to decline in his early 30s. Zambrano hasn't approached his peak. Then how do you explain the continued production of the players I cited above? Ryno, for instance, showed a major increase in his power nos. after age 30. I think you might becorrect about MIFers who are middling or worse, but guys like Tejada who are the class of their position do not typically dropp off until later.

I disagree with your hyperbolic assesment of the situation, but agree that it is an arguable point, especially in light of the gaping hole in RF.

Wrong, especially for middle infielders. Peak is 27. There is some variance in either direction, maybe 26 or 28 here and there. Regardless, Tejada has peaked, and will be getting worse in his 30's. He'll still be good, but not as good as he was before. I completely diagree with that assessment, especially since athletes take much better care of themselves than they have in years past. I would bet that MIFers in the upper echelon (such as Jeter and Kent, and historically, Ryno and Ozzie Smith, as examples) either maintained or increased their production as they entered their thirties (i.e., 30-34). Point is that Tejada cannot be judged against the statiscal trends of the Neifi Perezs of the world. he's head-and-shoulders above that level, and if he has 4 or 5 more seasons like the last few, is highley likely to be an HOFer.

The Cubs pitching is severely lacking in quality. This trade idea helps the offense, but hurts the pitching, and leaves very little room to make improvements elsewhere. Even in a trade for Tejada, the Cubs still need to get at least a decent bat for RF. Trade Z and others for Tejada, then sign a starting pitcher. The starting pitcher is going to be worse than Zambrano, probably much worse. Tejada is a really good player who I'd love to have on this team, but he's past his prime. Zambrano hasn't hit his. Tejada is very expensive, Zambrano is very cheap. Zambrano has been the only steady, healthy, effective starter on the roster the past 2 years. I think, at best, this trade makes the Cubs marginally better right now, but will make them worse as soon as 2007, with much fewer resources available then to make them better. But I also think that with the instability of the pitching staff already as bad as it is, this trade could make them worse in 2006. Another thing to consider is no other team that can consider a Tejada trade can offer anything close to Zambrano. San Diego isn't trading Peavy. Minnesota isn't going to give them Santana. Zambrano is in their class of pitchers. The only way a deal gets made that makes sense for the Cubs is if Baltimore truly does have to trade Tejada, and if their money grubbing owner would take back prospects for Miggy. Bottom line, I'd rather have Zambrano starting at pitcher and Cedeno starting at shortstop than Miggy starting at shortstop, Rusch getting 33 starts and paying some mediocre free agent pitcher a 4/40 contract to give the Cubs a 4.00 ERA or worse. The Cubs need more offense to this team and more starting pitching. They can't get rid of their best starting pitcher to help this team now. I understand your point, but respectfully disagree re the following: 1) Tejada is not past his prime. He's not even 30 yet, and a player's "prime" generally begins in hhis late twenties and lasts until 33 or 34. 2) I do not think that we would have to give Washburn or Millwood 4 for 40, and I think Millwood could be had for 3 years and 24 mill. Not a bargain, but in light of recent events, not a bank-breaker either. 3) You generally have to give up value in order to receive it, and if there is one position where we actually still have prospects who could fill in, its SP: Hill, Guzman (who had a good winter and is expected to challenge Rusch for the 5th spot per Levine), and Williams. This is not to say that their production would rival Z's; it would not. But its all about wins, and having Tejada in the lineup 6.9 days a week, IMO, would lead to more wins than a starting pitcher can give us.

he tells them "see these? these are birds on bats. throw the ball three inches off the corners and they'll be called strikes. now go have a career year." Bitter? Yeah, really. Lets give Duncan some credit: he reserected Eldred and Taveras. That's just short of churning water from a stone.

I've made a pitch for why Rogers' idea might not be so crazy, mainly based on Tejada's Win Shares. Can someon comment on why it is crazy with some specificity?

I don't see this trade as being so crazy, but that's just me. I like it mainly b/c we get Cabrera back along with Tejada in Rogers' scenario, although I'd prefer the Bedard kid instead. Tejada's 05' win shares (as cited in Roger's article) is very enticing.

Bruce, nice article today about Tejada. I just hope that Hendry shares your enthusiasm. Do you think Hendry views Tejada as someone that the Cubs would be willing to part with "untouchables"? http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=130468 Oh, I think so. Hendry just should have signed Tejada after the 03 season, and gotten rid of Alex Gonzalez, even if he had to pay him to play for someone else. That move still irks me. Did he even try? You would think he would have had a good shot with his good buddy Sosa still on the team then, along with Alou and Ramirez. bygones

They are not any closer to competing in that div. than the Fish are. Hill, Williams, Cedeno and a Single A prospect for Miggy and a bit of cash, please. There will plenty of teams that would be willing to offer more. Perhaps - but then we should match or exceed.

They are not any closer to competing in that div. than the Fish are. Hill, Williams, Cedeno and a Single A prospect for Miggy and a bit of cash, please.

Bruce, nice article today about Tejada. I just hope that Hendry shares your enthusiasm. Do you think Hendry views Tejada as someone that the Cubs would be willing to part with "untouchables"? http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=130468 Oh, I think so. Dear G-d I hope you are right, Mr. Miles!! :fingerscrossed: :ohnoes: