nilodnayr

I doubt Tampa Bay will be in need of any help at 3B with Evan Longoria ripping up the Minor Leagues last summer. That is pretty much based on Felix Pie's entire professional career. The kid has ALL the tools, but little plate discipline. He is not ready to hit in the Major Leagues now, and likely won't be ready for at least another year. SO, let him develope in AA and AAA next year, with a cup of coffee - then see how he can learn to turn around the BB/K ratio a little bit. That being said, I am sure he will probably play at least half the season in Chicago in 2007 - but I think it is obvious that Pie has some maturing to do with the bat. Pie nearly had a 900 OPS in the second half at AAA last year. Cue the comet graphic..."The more you know". Also, Pie's IsoD is higher than Soriano's.

I'll never agree with this, it ignores the plain truth. Getting great performances out of guys is just getting great performances out of guys. No stars coming into alignment. No horoscopes with Moons waxing in Scorpio. Just a really good job by a bunch of people all attempting to get those great performances from those players. A success story. White Sox circa 2005 -- great job, great success story. Regardless of the proof I provided above, don't you think the timing of all of those great performances is lucky? If half of their rotation would have had a great year in 05 and the other half in 06, then they wouldn't have made the playoffs in either year. Heck, pythagorean has them missing the playoffs in both years as it is.

Heres a fun little exercise. Lets compare the 05 and 06 rotation in terms of actual BABIP vs expected BABIP. We find the following In 05 Buehrle's BABIP was .036 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .001 higher than expected. In 05 Contreras' BABIP was .054 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 higher than expected. In 05 Garland's BABIP was .077 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .009 higher than expected. In 05 Freddy's BABIP was .040 lower than expected, while in 06 it was .010 lower than expected. In 05 Il Duche's BABIP was .033 lower than expected, while in 06 Javy's was .006 higher than expected. So in summation, the 2005 Whitesox rotation was very lucky. Ohh and those are regular season stats...you don't want to know how lucky they were in the playoffs. Ok just for some more fun they were .072, .097, .106, .134, and .247 lower than expected respectively in the postseason.

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series. I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them. I will go out on a limb and say that as the current team stands, if the cubs win the world series in 2007 it will be lucky. If they get the performances necessary to win the World Series this year, luck won't have anything to do with it. If there was such a thing as a lucky WS champ, the Cubs would have won one by now (since '08). I think the difference in though here is that I believe if a group of players happen to have career years exceeding expectations and above their norms all at the same time then it is luck. You believe that they went out there and performed well so its not luck. I have repeatedly acknowledged that they performed well (I haven't looked at BABIP and HR/FB rates, but I'm guessing those were lucky), but the fact that they all performed well at the same time and the right times is luck. It is reasonable to assume that some players will play better than expected, some meet expectations, and some underperform, but luck comes into play when you have a significant amount of important players exceed expectations. If you think its good coaching, then what happened in 2006? If you think its the assembling of a group of guys willing to work hard, then what happened in 2006 when their team was improved in the offseason? If you think its great execution then why didn't the same players execute just as well in 2006? You state "the fact that they didn't do as well in 2006 simply indicates that they didn't do as good a job." Thats painfully obvious (well painful for sox fans, joyful for us cubs fans). But the question is WHY didn't they do as good of a job in 2006? If you think that no luck was involved in 2005 then you have to believe that those same players were unlucky in 2006.

Let him walk and put Pie in center. He'll easily be a Type A FA, so we will be well compensated. If we are only giving up two middle relievers and a pitching prospect to get this done, its a no-brainer, IMO. EDIT: And I just thought of a great sophmoric response to the title of this thread: "That's what she said." Offering two middle relievers and a pitching prospect won't even be enough to talk to Schuerholz's secretary. Funny, but that is contradicted by the rumors floated earlier in this thread, if you wish to go back and read them. Funny, but the rumor is "trying to find Jones’ replacement on the cheap, and working more on the bullpen". So if by two middle relievers and a pitching prospect you mean two middle relievers and Felix Pie, then you are absolutely correct. And that may not be enough as Baldelli, Granderson and Markakis are probably more attractive than Pie.

I think everyone wins big in that scenario except for the cubs

Let him walk and put Pie in center. He'll easily be a Type A FA, so we will be well compensated. If we are only giving up two middle relievers and a pitching prospect to get this done, its a no-brainer, IMO. EDIT: And I just thought of a great sophmoric response to the title of this thread: "That's what she said." Offering two middle relievers and a pitching prospect won't even be enough to talk to Schuerholz's secretary.

Don't lump me in with that crowd. I could give a crap if someone said the Cubs were lucky to win the World Series, primarily because I'd be too busy celebrating the fact that the Cubs won the World Series. I personally feel it's very fair to say that luck plays a large role. Any fan who gets upset because someone said their team was lucky to win needs to grow a thicker skin. Luck or not, a World Series title is still a World Series title. I really don't care if the Cubs win on a walk-off homer or a bad-hop grounder as long as they win. Once they win, no one can take that away from us as fans. If people want to call it luck, let them. I will go out on a limb and say that as the current team stands, if the cubs win the world series in 2007 it will be lucky.

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing. Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves. Detroit has improved their team this offseason. Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul. So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit. What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck? I never call winning the World Series luck, no matter what. And my argument is, neither should you----or you risk being intellectually dishonest. Because you know damn well if someone else called the Cubs lucky for winning it, you'd be upset. Any arguments to the contrary are just fans being fans. In order to win a world championship in any sport luck is involved. However, luck in certain degrees. The 72-10 bulls were lucky that they had no major injuries. The 2005 Whitesox were lucky that their rotation performed significantly better year than the exact same rotation in 2006. So far use of "intellectually dishonest" in this thread is completely ridiculous. If you are going to use it correctly you should say "It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that the Whitesox won the 2005 WS on the strength of their rotation, who significantly excceded expectations, as those same pitchers regressed to career norms in the 2006 campaign in which they finished 3rd in the division.

His 2006 season netted him 17 wins because he had hands-down the best offense in the game behind him. As of now, they're rotation consists of Mussina, Pettitte, Wang, Johnson, and Pavano. It's a strong 1-3, but if they could net a decent #4 pitcher who isn't facing the injury risks and performance decline Johnson is, or if they feel that Jeff Karstens is ready to start full-time, all while getting rid of his $15M+ contract, it's a no-brainer on their part. IF Johnson is healthy theres a very very good chance he will be the #1 pitcher in that rotation.

Except of course that according to the Brewers, Sheets should be ready for opening day and according to the cubs, Prior isn't counted on to be in their top 5 starters. While absolutely, the success of both rotations (and teams) depends heavily on the health of both pitchers, the optimism/pessimism currently shown by their respective teams should give you a good guage as to how much each will be able to contribute. The Brewers expectations definitely don't mean Sheets will be healthy, but they are a hell of a lot more ringing of an endorsement than what the cubs have given Prior.

You wouldn't think, but he did trade for a banged up Mike Hampton who hasn't been particularly healthy with the Braves either. Not to mention, after a few years of having somebody else pay Hampton's salary, I believe they are on the hook for the next couple years. Maybe they need to get creative to make some room. I'm usually not one to say that if a GM got burned by X player and Y player is in the same situation then he will shy away, but this might be one of those scenarios. From everything that I've read, the Braves are at the limit of their budget after getting rid of Giles. They can't really add anything, but they don't have to get rid of anymore. I'd like for the cubs to get involved somehow with their excess of arms in the pen though.

I'd be pissed if I were the dodgers

You going all hill-billy on us or just a typo? :) I really don't think there's much of a chance the Cubs will end up with somebody like Jones in center. However, with the way Hendry backloaded so many of these contracts, there is still plenty of room between where they are, and where they were reportedly willing to go, in terms of payroll. Hendry's treatment of the CF position is the key to how excited I'll be getting about this team (unless he magically makes a big SS move). They could end up with anything from bottom of the barrel to top notch CF production. Goony, you know Vance well enough to know that its the former, not the latter. :D Although I like Andruw and as instructed by the cubs am not counting on (but still hoping for) Prior in 06, its still difficult for me to trade 2 relatively cheap years of Prior for one expensive year of Andruw. And Scherholz wouldn't make the trade anyway unless Prior were healthy.

Jacque Jones and Michael Barrett/Henry Blanco say hi. I assume Theriot doesn't count as having significant playing time, but 150 ABs ain't too shabby. All of them signifncantly exceeded expectations.

Its really not funny at all. For the last few years the cubs have been very secretive about injuries and have always publically said that the pitchers are fine when in reality we have gotten very little out of Prior and Wood the last few years. Sooooo, when the cubs publically say they are not counting on Prior to contribute to the rotation, how else are fans supposed to react?

A) he wants to go back closer to AZ, while Chicago is closer than NY, I don't think its close enough. B)While his health and ability to throw come ST are real concerns, a cursory evaluation of his stats for recent years are extremely deceiving. Johnson's peripherals remain excellent (and not because of luck) and while his K rate has declined, it is still significantly above average. As a Yankee, ZiPS projects a 3.71 ERA, PECOTA projects a 3.52 ERA in 2007.

Time will tell whether he knows what he's doing. Agreed. They were in a position to be very good with an addition to the roster here and there. They still can be, but if they don't make the necessary moves to be competitive this year, Williams is going to look pretty bad with these moves. Detroit has improved their team this offseason. Proof is the WS ring. There are no lucky WS championships. You win it, you've proven yourself. Cub fans may not like that because it's the WS, but believe me if the Cubs won one and people called it luck, we'd be crying foul. So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves, and admit Williams got it done, so he gets the credit. What happens if the team that won the world series improves significantly in the offseason and then doesn't even make the playoffs the next year? Would you then call it luck?

Knuckleballs have the same grading scale and flucuate as comparing a FB or breaking pitch. Wakefield and Candy immed. come to mind as far as knucklers who could start in their prime and be effective and have better knucklers than Fernandez and better secondary pitches. Haeger throws his about 75% of the time, that pitch when thrown at its best is on the btm edge of the zone for a strike or just below the knees, it'll never be a good strike out or control pitch. But, the ability to throw a mid 80s FB and occasional curve makes them that much more effective. The concept that a knuckleballer can't be an effective pitcher is wrong. Like Webb with the sinker, it has to be good enough to not be able to hit when you know it's coming and throw diff. pitches once in awhile to throw a hitter off (his knuckleball isn't close to Webb's sinker as far as effectiveness). Thanks for the info. To clarify, I didn't mean that knucklers can't be effective pitchers. Obviously there have been a few in baseball. But thats my point exactly. There have been so few. Fernandez and Dickey come to mind as recent failures. I think Haeger is significantly better than both, but the whole start of this was RSF's opinion that Haeger will outproduce McCarthy. Regardless of the ERA's Haeger has posted in the minors, thats an extremely risky bet. For the Sox's sake its good that Haeger has other useful pitches that he throws, it will definitely keep batters on their toes, but no matter how you slice it, his BB rate is going to lead to big problems in the majors. He hasn't been hurt by putting a ton of runners on base yet, but I can't see how that will be sustainable in the majors.

The only clue you can take from the article is that this trade is not the Randy Johnson trade. I don't think it involves Helton because frankly Helton and his contract are not going to net a big name unless its another onerous contract and I dont think that interests the rockies. Plus the only team reportedly interested were the Angels and O'Dowd flat out denied that he had talked to Stoneman since the winter meetings. And the only "big name" I could have seen the Angels give up was Garet Anderson (not big player, but still marginally a "big name"), but all that probably went out the window with Rivera breaking his leg. Helton to the Yanks makes sense, but as I mentioned before, according to the wording, this is in addition to the Big Unit trade. Regarding the mention of the White Sox. That appears to be unrelated as the McCarthy deal is the first sentence and this trade is the last sentence in the entire article. I think the mention of the McCarthy deal was moreso to further illustrate the shock that he and others at BP had when the deal was announced. I have no clue what the trade will be, but Prior is a big name. :)

Thanks, I totally missed that. Villanueva and Gallardo are going to be quite the 1-2 punch in AAA.

Yeah, thats a lot of errors in a short period of time. Is his fielding going to be a barrier to making it as a utility guy? McGehee was drafted as a catcher so he has that on his resume to help as far as being a utility guy goes. He also played a few games at 2nd base which also helps. As far as the errors go, I always take errors in winter ball with a grain of salt because the fields aren't always in very good condition. His errors for the minor league season should give a much better indication of what his defense is really like. I think 7 of his 11 errors so far have been throwing errors though. But hes only had 3 in the last 100 or so ABs, so at least his rate is decreasing to an acceptable level. Maybe he just had a tough transition.

Because he's a solid, durable pitcher. And he's getting the same deal as Lilly, when he's a way better pitcher than Lilly. I see the argument for calling him durable, but he isn't really much of a pitcher.in the current sense of the word. He doesn't really do anything to help or hurt his own chances on the field. He doesn't strike out anybody. His walk rate is a bit better than league average. His HR rate is respectable but not amazing. Perhaps more than anybody else in the league, he's only as good as the defense behind him. But with him being a bit of a groundball pitcher, I would not want to see how he does when Hardy goes down again and his middle infield is Hall and Weeks. (I still don't see Counsell getting extended playing time at SS if/when Hardy goes down...) At any rate, that Brewers defense isn't awe-inspiring. In the 8 full years hes been starting in the majors he averages over 200 innings and a 107 ERA+. I'm not big on "innings eaters" when that is their only quality, but he eats innings with at worst league average pitching. With the He definitely isn't going to be league average in K rate, but that one less guy he strikes out per game probably isn't as big of a deal as you seem to be making it out to be. The only question I have is now where does that leave room for Gallardo, Eveland, and Villanueva in the coming years? Sheets is signed for 2 more years, Vargas and Capuano hit the market in 3 years, Bush hits the market in 4 and Suppan's contract expires in 4, with an option for a 5th year. All three youngsters I mentioned are knocking at the door and Eveland is entering his last year of options. It will be interesting to see what develops with Sheets being the name most likely thrown around. If he puts up a healthy year maybe the Yanks could get him for Tabata, Duncan, Beam, and Melky. That would immediately fill holes at 3rd, CF, and the back end of the pen with Tabata having the highest ceiling still developing. Kinda similar to the Sexson trade.

Just barely edging out Jared Fernandez? I love the knuckleball but it's gimmicky, and I wouldn't put a lot of faith in a guy's minor league #s using it. I understand the concept of translating minor league stats, but knuckleballers have proven to be the exception for DIPs, and I think this is another thing where you can't just look at his MLEs and get a good estimate of what he'll become. No, it's better than Fernandez it has better movement and he can control it better. Unlike most knuckleballers he has some velocity on his FB and his curve is avg. I think the Jared Fernandez mention was a joke. As in proof that knucklers don't make it in the majors. If Haeger has good control, then why does he walk a guy every other inning? Also, if he has a useable FB and curve, then why has he never posted over 7 K/9 in a season? I've never seen him pitch so I'm asking since it doesn't show at all in his #s.

Except that McCarthy has about 4 (5?) seasons left where his salary can be controlled either by the team or by arbitration. So unless Williams is planning for the 2011 payroll, I don't think that's why he did it. I believe he has 5 more seasons until he hits the market. For comparison's sake Bonderman just agreed to an extention that pays him Lilly/Meche $ in his last year of arbi (and his first FA eligible year). So if by one productive season you mean 4, then you are absolutely right.