nilodnayr

That's not what I read. An argument was being made that if someone from the infield should be traded it should be Lee (and not Walker) because we can get more for him. I think "if" was the operative word. He wasn't saying that we should trade Lee, just that if one had to be traded, Lee would net more in return. I understand the difference and still think its a gross overstatement. Walker is a nice offensive player but not someone you build a team around. Contrary to popular belief, I suspect the chances are high that Walker is gone by the deadline (while a trade of any kind for Lee is highly unlikely.) Look at it this way; Lawton, Hollandsworth, and Walker all cleared waivers for the Cubs. We all know what happened with the other two... I would say that is not contrary to popular belief according to the chicago sportswriters, unfortunately. Just because he cleared waivers doesnt necessarily mean he will be traded though.

That's not what I read. An argument was being made that if someone from the infield should be traded it should be Lee (and not Walker) because we can get more for him. but nobody said we had to trade an infielder thats like saying that if you have to shoot either a dog or a cat, and you shoot a cat, it means you want to shoot a cat. It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively. The love for Walker is beyond bizarre. Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year). LOL, I guess I'm the only one that thought these posts had something to do with trading Lee over Walker. they ARE about trading Lee over walker, but they are not about trading either of them

that doesnt look like anyone needs to be traded to me. IMB was just using lee as an example of how great walkers production/salary is and how difficult it would be to replace a bat like his at his postition (as you can see by some one like Soriano who will make 10M at similar production).

Seconded. Although if Cedeno does well in the last 30 games I wouldnt mind handing it over to him. However of course he may be playing against other extended roster players. But id rather bring back nomar cheaply with incentives and give ronny another year to break in giving nomar a day or two off a week and being a late inning defensive replacement if we are up.

nope, i dont think any one is

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively. The love for Walker is beyond bizarre. Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year). You can't make the team better by weakening its core. Even if you think his offensive outbreak is a one year deal, it's hard to argue against Derrek Lee as one of the best defensive 1B in the league. The Cubs infield defense would suffer no matter what they could get for him in a trade. Im not saying to trade either player, I think that would be very foolish.

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively. Without DLee this team is pretty much the worst team in the NL, no better than the rockies or pirates. Trading Walker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trading Lee. Of course, that assumes you don't get anything in return. If you can capitalize on his inflated value, it might make sense to deal Lee, since he has an inflated value and may command more than he's actually worth after next season. One man's inflated value is another man's coming into his own... This year aside, Lee has been a consistent 30/98 man which is still far more productive than Walker. Besides, getting rid of Lee would cause BOTH an offensive and defensive deficiency. Offensively last year Walker had an 820 OPS and Lee had 860 OPS. At even money Id take an 820 OPS from my second baseman over an 860 OPS from my firstbaseman. Of course Lee was making 4 times what Walker made. Now, Walker had 250 less ABs and is average defensively with Lee being gold glove caliber. They both are great production/value but projecting the future, I would put Lee at around 950 OPS and not expect him to put up numbers over 1100. Lee had already played 1000 games before this year, im not saying its a fluke year, but i wouldnt say hes coming into his own.

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively. The love for Walker is beyond bizarre. Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year).

Ill be heading to wrigley in a few, anyone who lives near wants to meet me there in 20 min or so, I have a few extra bleachers

A trend I've noticed (and i dont know if its recent or not) is that more and more teams really arent valuing putting an arm in RF. Alou, Lawton, Huff, Sosa, Green are just a few that come to mind, I'm sure there are more. CP doesnt have a good arm either. And with that OF, Murton would be leading off in my lineup.

Because we are also getting extremely good production for the price at that position. We dont need to overpay at ss this year to solve second base in 2007. For example, Jeff Kent is making 8.5M, would you rather take Kent's production or Furcals? If you have a cheap shortstop you count your blessings as weve seen the market for good defense and 750 OPS players is 8-10M. Plus, what happens with EPatt if youve inked Furcal and slid ronny over to second. If Furcal had a better OBP, maybe id think twice, but 340 is nothing great. I am not penny pinching, I just dont think its a good allocation of funds. Would you not agree that Ronny, Walker, and Giles is better than Furcal, Ronny, and Holla?

Except Walker gets more extra base hits than Furcal, so he doesn't always have to steal a base to get into scoring position. I'm not sure that kind of money is worth some stolen bases. Also, the Braves don't want him back. If they felt he was that important to their team, I think they'd find a way to keep him around. They usually aren't wrong about these types of things. It's not about if they think he's important or not. It's about whether they think they can compete with their funds allocated elsewhere. Do you think they thought Sheffield was done when they got rid of him? Or JD Drew? They got rid of them because they thought they could maintain their level of success by replacing them for less money and using what was left over to strengthen another need on the team. If they don't re-sign Furcal, it will be because they believe they can go with a cheaper alternative and make up the production elsewhere, not because they feel they don't need him. See bold. Which is exactly what we should do with Ronny Cedeno. We all know what the market is for shortstops, thats why we really need to give a $350K option a shot. 8M in the OF gets you a whole lot more than 8M at shortstop. The braves are smart, they dont need to resign furcal because they have betemit, if we sign furcal with cedeno its just another example of how poorly this organization is run.

are you kidding me... I (no joke) say "what am I, a doctor?" at least 10 times a day.

I did the numbers and we can still afford Giles and Ryan while keeping the payroll around 95M this year. With CF (Pie), LF (Murton), SS (Cedeno), we will have some money to go around when its the pitcher's time to cash in. After 2006, Wood, Maddux, Nomar (assuming they bring him back for another year) will free up another ~25M that should be replaced from within cheaply.

Altanta can let him go because they have a guy more than capable to replace him. Betemit is more than capable, infact this year in over 200 ABs he is outperforming ANY Furcal season. Having 2 position starters with 6+ years of service, one abri eligible, and the rest pre arbi eligible...thats how Atlanta wins. Ohh and I hear they have a pretty good pitching coach too.

Patterson cannot hit enough to be an ML corner outfielder

Sure

First off I wouldnt be 100% sure Dusty will be here next year. Secondly, I would argue exactly the opposite of your point. Hendry needs to load the roster with young kids so Dusty HAS to play them. No Macias, No Neifi, No Holla, YES Fontenot, YES Cedeno, YES Murton. Ohh and if Burnitz is kept and Lawton is not I swear, I might take off my bracelet.

obligatory acknowledgement of the street fighter reference

Everyone tires out. Look at his September numbers last year. He was totally gassed. I think a few days off here and there could have preserved his bat for the stretch run. Look at his September numbers from the year before. Gassed? Ohh and the year before that. Ohh and the year before that. Yeah, over 3 of the last 4 years he has done significantly better in his last month than he has the rest of the season. Thats what I meant by his stats say he doesnt, Im not convinced giving him days off does anything.

Um...Alou was signed to a 1 yr 7.25M contract with a 1M deferred to 2006 and 1.5M deferred to 2007 and a 6M player option for 2006 with money deferred. Nowhere close to the same amount of money. 42/4 is absolutely completely ridiculous. Especially considering he is currently signed to 6 year 45M contract, albeit half were arbi buyout years thats still a 3/21 contract during his FA years. He might get a 3 yr contract, but definitely at not over 10M per.

Who backs up first base in this situation? Well who do you consider our backup firstbaseman now? Macias? You cant surely be advocating keeping Macias. Walker will do just fine starting a couple of games and if Lee were to go down I'd rather bring up Sing as he surely could do as well as a 25th man. I have no idea who our backup is this year, it's one of several things I'd like to see remedied. With a backup that at least has played significant time there in the past, Baker might be more likely to give Lee the rest he needs. Who says he needs it? He sure doesnt. His stats say he doesnt. I say leave him be.

The emergence of Cedeno makes signing Furcal a waste of money. I wish we would ahve gotten a better look at him this year but nothing has proven that we need to overpay a ridiculous amount for a guy who gets on base at a 330 clip

Who backs up first base in this situation? Well who do you consider our backup firstbaseman now? Macias? You cant surely be advocating keeping Macias. Walker will do just fine starting a couple of games and if Lee were to go down I'd rather bring up Sing as he surely could do as well as a 25th man.

Does anyone know whats going on with Lew Ford this year? I dont think Id have a problem of trading Welly/Mitre and Hairston for him.