BigbadB

One problem with your argument. Wily Mo just turned 24 and has about a season and a half worth of at bats. Neifi is 33 and is past his prime. What had Sammy Sosa done by the time he turned 24? 26 HR's in 336 at bats in 2004 shows tremendous power potential.

From what I've read it'll help increase it just a bit because Arroyo was headed to the bullpen to open the season in BOS. While he is moving from AL to NL he is moving into the hitter-friendly GAB. I didn't realize Arroyo was slated for a bulpen spot in Boston. How good is Cincy's bullpen? Will they lose a lot of his leads? Arroyo won't have a lot of leads to lose because he's not a good starting pitcher. I would have been happy to send our 6th starter (Rusch) to Cincy for Pena, even with our current situation. That was a real boneheaded move by Cincy. How closely does Wily Mo's offensive production match a young Sammy Sosa? He may not ever be what Sammy became, but it was foolish for the Reds to just let a guy like that go before he's even entered his prime. It has the chance to look like a George Bell/Sammy Sosa trade down the road.

No, it's not the same. Jordan did play for the Clippers. Or a team as bad as the Clippers anyway. When he was with the Bulls in his early days, the Bulls only had Jordan and they won nothing. It wasn't until Jordan had a good supporting cast (Grant, Armstrong, Pippen, Paxson, Cartwright) that they won championships. Jordan was a good player before those guys got there. He led the league in scoring many times before those guys got there. But, if he never would have had those guys on his team, he would have had a career that resembled George Gervin. A great player that never won anything because his teammates were never good enough to make the playoffs. Yeah, I know the Bulls had a bad supporting cast in Jordan's early years, but the question is whether people would have regarded him as one of the greatest players ever if he played for a bad team every year. Championships don't determine the value of a player. Are you prepared to say that A-Rod is not a great player because he's never won a championship? Walter Payton was the greatest running back of all time BEFORE the Bears won the Super Bowl.

Clemens started in 32 games and pitched in a total of 211 innings last year. He had 11 no decisions. At least 4 of those no decisions were games he left having given up zero runs. His 13-8 record doesn't tell you he started 32 games. If Clemens pitched for a better offensive team than the horrible Houston Astros last year, he would have been a 20 game winner easily. Kerry Wood could have been a 20 game winner in 2003 with better run support, or at the very least, a better bullpen.

Pena is only 24, and somewhat reminds me of a young Sammy Sosa. Red Sox just made their offense even better.

Theoretically, if Neifi keeps the other team off the bases one more time a game, and Walker gets on base one more time a game than Neifi...wouldn't it be a net wash between the two of them? With a possible edge to Neifi as the extra out would save our staff pitches which historically seems to be an issue with us. (Note, I'm not advocating Neifi...just speaking hypotheticals here) We mustn't forget that Neifi is very good at making 2 outs with one swing of the bat, also.

No, it's not the same. Jordan did play for the Clippers. Or a team as bad as the Clippers anyway. When he was with the Bulls in his early days, the Bulls only had Jordan and they won nothing. It wasn't until Jordan had a good supporting cast (Grant, Armstrong, Pippen, Paxson, Cartwright) that they won championships. Jordan was a good player before those guys got there. He led the league in scoring many times before those guys got there. But, if he never would have had those guys on his team, he would have had a career that resembled George Gervin. A great player that never won anything because his teammates were never good enough to make the playoffs.

823 plays on a ball to 680 is less than 1 extra play per game. How much of an impact can one more hit by the opposing team (Perez) per game be as opposed to getting on base (Walker's OBP compared to Neifi's) nearly 1 more time per game?

No cheating by looking this up. I am copying the game log from a pitcher in the last 5 years. Tell me what this pitchers record should resemble. By the way, instead of ERA, I'm using all runs scored while this pitcher was on the mound. April game 1- 7 innings, 1 run April game 2- 7 innings , 0 runs April game 3- 7 innings, 0 runs April game 4- 7 innings, 0 runs April game 5- 7 innings, 3 runs 5 starts in April, 4 runs given up. What should this pitchers record be? 4-1 or maybe even 5-0? No argument from me on either one. May game 1- 7 innings, 2 runs May game 2- 7 innings, 0 runs May game 3- 8 innings, 1 run May game 4- 6 innings, 3 runs May game 5- 5 innings, 0 runs May game 6- 8 innings, 2 runs 6 starts in May, 8 total runs given up. Combined with April, this guys Runs Averaged per start is just a hair over 1 run a game. Dominant. What should this guys record be at this stage? Just for fun, let's give him 2 losses, to make him 4-2 for the month. 8-3 so far for the year? June was just as strong as April and May. This pitcher gave up 4 runs in his first start in June, but only 1, 0, 2, and 1 in his other 4. In other words, I'm not going to continue this chirade. By the end of June, Roger Clemens (in 2005) had an ERA of 1.50 and his record after 16 starts was 6-3, when arguably he could or should have had at least 12 wins. Of those 16 starts, he gave up more than 2 runs only 3 times. Wins are a metric of of evaulating a pitcher, but a very poor one. Look at Roger's April once again. He ended up going 1-1 for the month with a 1.03 ERA. After May, he was 3-3. Yes, 3-3. He didn't even have a winning record with his 1.30 ERA. That's just ridiculous. That's because Houston's offense sucked when he was on the mound. So, the theory that a good pitcher knows how to win is inaccurate. A pitcher cannot control how well or how poorly his team will hit and score. There have been dominant pitchers that always pitched for bad teams who don't have good winning records because the offense didn't put him in enough positions to win games. Roger Clemens was the best pitcher in the NL last year, and it's not even arguable. Yet, he only won 13 games. In April, Clemens threw 3 straight shut outs, and he ended up with no record at all in those 3 games, as his team lost all 3 games 1-0 after he left the game. Can you arguably say a good pitcher knows how to win when the greatest pitching in the world will not guarantee him a win? His offense has too much of an impact of whether he wins or loses.

Baseball players should quit trying to be bigger than the game itself. If Soriano wanted to stay at 2b, maybe he should have figured out a way to quit being such a hack out there in the field. A move to left field is not a big deal. Should we list all the great left fielders that played this game before Soriano? Is Soriano too good to play that position? I sure don't think so. If you feel a certain section of the field should be yours to claim, then maybe you should field that section of the field better than any other player, so no one else can claim it. Bottom line, he's making millions to play a game. He's living the American dream, and he isn't even American. If you don't want to play LF, then I'm sure there are some Dominican Republic teams that would be happy to stick you at 2nd base, but you aren't taking your 10m contract with you. For 10m a year, I'd play any position on the field today, and clean jock straps tomorrow. And I wouldn't complain about it. The selfishness is growing to new heights each and every year, in seemingly every sport. And I for one really can't stand it.

Maybe instead of using the out of shape, uninspired multi millionaires, they should send out the kids who are battling for major league jobs. Some of them played winter ball, which puts them in better game shape as well. One thing I noticed at the game yesterday, the Cuban catcher was beating the runner to 1st on infield grounders to back up plays. It's not all about fundamentals, but when every player on the team is playing the game the way it's supposed to be played, you certainly improve your chances. Wily Mo Pena, on the other hand, was barely rounding 1st when the left fielder dropped a fly ball. He should have been standing at 2nd. It seems like a lot of these guys just assume that once you reach the majors it's no longer important to hustle.

Rusch against Eric Milton won't be the tv game of the week, but I don't think the Cubs get blown out in this game.

I have no doubts he feels soreness, but I have doubts whether or not he can differentiate between normal soreness and serious soreness, and I have no faith in the Cubs' ability to help him differentiate. Again, he's left games feeling discomfort and soreness, and then been fine enough to take his next turn in the rotation. There is precedent for questioning his own sense of pain. How does one differentiate these pains? If you've never had a torn labrum, how do you know you aren't suffering from one? I had a pain in my kidney area the other day and wondered if I had a serious issue that needed to be addressed. I let it go for a few days and it turns out it was probably just a strain to muscle near my kidney. I havent' felt it since. But, since I've never had a kidney stone, I wouldn't know how much pain or what kind of pain to expect. It sure made me a lot more concerned with that muscle strain than others that weren't near vital organs. With a baseball player, I think you can expect that the concern is dramtatically increased considering that the arm or shoulder that is his livelihood in this game is what is experiencing pains he may have never felt before. I'm giving Prior the benefit of the doubt here.

And I was basically going to offer up the same thing, but got sidetracked. If there is this small of a market for him now, what will it be like for him if he continues to make a bunch of noise through this season? He's basically playing now to extend his career. I think he's the best option we have, but I don't think he's all that far ahead of Hairston. Between the 2 of them, I think 2nd base will not be a problem area (if Walker just talks through his bat).

It is interesting timing. Maybe they feel Boston is ready to slide, and the Yankees are getting older and older. Maybe they felt this was the year to start making a run. Maybe they felt that with the right combination of free agent signings along with the youth movement that they are currently having, along with a couple of their players hitting their prime years, maybe this was the year to go for it. Maybe there target year is actually 2007, and getting all the pieces in place in 2006 to make that run in 2007 is their strategy. It's interesting, because just a few short years ago, they were selling off every big dollar player they could.

I think that's only slightly contradictory. Even though he's being shut down from throwing for 7 to 10 days, there is no way to know now whether the inflammation will have cleared up by then, whether throwing will reaggravate or how far behind this puts him to actually pitch in a real game.

Isn't there a rumor floating around in Rivalries that says Ben Sheets arm will need to be reattached at the shoulder? Good trade!

Wow, Toronto is spending the big bucks this offseason. Clearly, the winners for best offseason in the AL, arguably for both leagues. AJ Burnett BJ Ryan Bengie Molina Lyle Overbay Troy Glaus Extend one of the best pitchers in the majors through 2010 (Halladay)

Alou, no problem. Sosa, not likely. Sosa was still the Cubs franchise player at that time. Alou could have been dealt to San Francisco pretty easily, IMO. Moving Sosa to left where he belonged would have been the start of his departure from Chicago, as he would have thrown a fit much worse than being moved down in the order.

Yeah, I don't understand the sentiments towards Prior. Without his pitching arm, he has no baseball career. Does he simply throw caution to the wind and pitch while injured? I'm sure guys have done that while worrying about winning a starting job, only to find that their careers are over because they didn't take preemptive measures.

I didn't say that. I said you don't set aside a roster spot for the mythical longman. Glendon Rusch went 2 and a third on opening day. Then he had 2 outings where he went one third, and then he went 3 innings. The Cubs can get similar pitching out of some of the 7 guys they will have. If you start with 4 starters, bring your best 7 relievers. Don't bring a Rusch impersonator because you think you might need him one day. Who in our bullpen is going to go 3 innings? Wuertz, Eyre, Howry, Williamson, Dempster, Ohman? That's 6 guys who are likely locked in. That leaves one spot for a guy who can pitch more than 2 innings (Welly, Hill), and you take that guy over Novoa who can't, IMO.

Baltimore worked it out with Tejada. Boston worked it out with Manny. Teams work out their disagreements, and if you can keep it out of the public, even better. Cubs management doesn't appear as though they have any desire to work out any disagreements, which makes me wonder why they picked up his option in the first place. I think they did it to piss him off. He said that he didn't want it picked up if all they were going to do is trade him. This whole Walker debacle is ridiculous. I agree that he needs to shut his trap. However, he's likely the best 2b option we have, and even if he's sitting on the bench, he's probably our best option off the bench. Work it out and move on. Trade him for Luis Matos, and this place is going to erupt.

We know what they do when they want guys out. Apparently, they still haven't learned from Patterson and Sosa. I really don't understand the concept of destroying a guys value to the point he is worthless in trade. Unlike Sosa and Patterson, the Cubs tried to trade Walker before mentioning anything negative about him (and they got no takers). I think the Cubs inability to trade Walker has been predicated on his own reputation as a subpar defender. As it stands, the only team (Baltimore) that's rumored to be interested in him would prefer to use him as a DH. Then it stands to reason, IMO, that you don't trade a guy who currently has little to no trade value. You sit him down and work it out. He's still way better coming off the bench with his bat than he is playing for some other team.

And if the Cubs do it that's supposed to be the right decision? I disagree with Cubs management on more things than most people, and I know you won't argue that point with me. Anymore disagreements and people might start questioning my loyalty. However, yes I think it is the right decision to have a swing man in the pen, ESPECIALLY when you only have 4 starting pitchers on the squad.

What do you think the long man/spot starter is? He's a reliever. In your pen, you need a guy who can give you more than just an inning or two. Glendon Rusch was the long man last year, and if I recall correctly, he came into a few games early and pitched several innings. I never brought up SS and I never brought up C. My argument is that you need a guy in the pen who can provide long relief when necessary. It's what I have been saying since I jumped into this argument. Go back and read all of my posts. Who will the long man be when we break camp? Hill, Guzman, Koronka, etc...? A guy like that needs to be 1 of the 7 bullpen arms. That's all I have been saying all along. Goony doesn't believe you need a guy who can provide more than an inning or two. I disagree.