Rob

I wouldn't part with Castro. I don't think the Cubs front office would either.

Very true. But it's nice to have an idea of what they think it'll cost. Compare that to what we think it should cost, and then try to come up in the middle. I think it's time to consider that we may not get a deal done without including Castro.

General consensus on the Tigers boards is that they wont even look at a package without Castro, then probably Vitters and Jackson too, if not more.

Here's a simple fact... even if you admit that the Yankees system isn't as good as ours, they can still put together a better trade proposal most of the time for one simple reason. They'll eat bad contracts. And when it comes to Detroit, they have no shortage of those laying around. Ordonez, Willis, Guillen, Bonderman, Robertson...

I thought Goldstein was still pretty down on the system. Saying we had a big turnaround, but we still weren't in the top half. I could be wrong on that.

Callis has a bit too much love for B. Jackson and the Cubs FO is probably too high on Watkins. Aside from that, I wont take much issue with the list... though I do think Flaherty may need to be dropped a few spots.

Blatantly stolen from Cot's: Mod Edit: Dates updated on 11/2/2010

He fully acknowledged that he zeroed in on one portion of your post that was misleading and nitpicked at it. You dont need to get so bent out of shape.

I still think the right answer to their issues was to trade Prince for a decent 2B or 3B and some pitching help, shifting Hardy to whichever of 2B or 3B they didn't get, and Weeks to CF, while bringing Gamel in to man 1B.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined. That's what I thought. While that comment itself isn't entirely true, it's a nice shortcut for certain arguments. When comparing Granderson to another player for the purposes of deciding whom to acquire, for instance. In that sort of situation, the end result of their approach is what matters, and faulting somebody for the strikeouts at that point serves no purpose. What you're arguing generally only has use for a hitting coach who is trying to squeeze the most out of his player... and most people on a message board are interested in playing GM and manager, not hitting coach. I get what you're saying Rob. When I hear a comment like, "who cares if Granderson strikes out a lot?" my immediate reaction is to cringe and think, well, anyone who's interested in Granderson being as productive as he can be should care, because his core metrics (slash stats, mainly) would all go up if he were to strike out less. I'd be careful about making blanket statements like that. Some players are perfectly capable of making the adjustment you describe. But some players aren't, and there are ALWAYS risks involved with trying to make changes to a player's mechanics and approach.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined. That's what I thought. While that comment itself isn't entirely true, it's a nice shortcut for certain arguments. When comparing Granderson to another player for the purposes of deciding whom to acquire, for instance. In that sort of situation, the end result of their approach is what matters, and faulting somebody for the strikeouts at that point serves no purpose. What you're arguing generally only has use for a hitting coach who is trying to squeeze the most out of his player... and most people on a message board are interested in playing GM and manager, not hitting coach.

What exactly are you trying to argue, davearm? It seems like dexter is trying to argue overall production despite strikeouts, while you're keyed in on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs. It might help if you both argue about the same thing. And dexter, I don't hate you. I just put you on ignore while you were in that annoying "I've learned just enough sabermetric stuff that I'm forming new opinions, but I'm doing it for all the wrong reasons" phase. I was particularly bad in that phase, so don't take it personally.

Honestly, I'm not going to second guess the decision. It was a close enough call that it was at the very least debatable. I sure as hell would have punted though.

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two. You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be. If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd. Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs? If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points). When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out. Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit. Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS. Would Granderson be better if he didn't strike out so much? Yes. But when we're comparing the production of two players, you don't get to double-count their strikeouts against them. Their strikeouts are already reflected in their final line.

is this a joke? No EDIT: And when I say solid, I mean he is around average No, he's not. He's pretty safely below-average. He's not an embarrassment or anything, but he's not around average.

I kept wanting to bring up Lake, but every time I do, he falls flat on his face.

Tyler Colvin - At one point or another, he's shown just about everything we could ever want from him. The ability to hit for average, hit for power, play CF, steal bases, and even the ability to take an adequate number of walks. He's still young (will be 24 until near the very end of next season) and is already on the fringe of our OF situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see him start the season at AAA and tear the cover off the ball in Iowa... especially with Von Joshua returning there. Hak-ju Lee - Honestly, just maintaining his production from this season would be enough to catapult him up some prospect lists. He's also got more room to fill out his frame and add some more power. And I've also got my eyes on Archer, McNutt, Burke, LeMahieu, Rhee, and Huseby this season.

i feel like everyone is calling him a platoon cf to say that he's not very good. Because he's not. He's a platoon player. They are 3 million dollar type players. Not 7-10 mill. Well that's just stupid.

It would appear he's just trying to elevate his fastball and blow it by the hitters in that league. To his credit, it seems to be working.

I know this isn't the point of your post, but Fernando Martinez just turned 21 a month ago and he already has a bit of major league service time. The star is still shining brightly for him.

They asked for Gallagher and Murton for him.... probably hoping to get us to settle on just Gallagher. I'd pass on him, for the record. His defensive stats are all over the map, but I'd assume he's a slightly below average CF, especially if over a full season. And he just barely manages an .800 OPS in Arlington. There are better uses of the money he'll likely command.

Oh good lord I hope that is sarcasm. Haha. Search through this guy's posts and see how many times he mentions Sam Fuld. It's hilarious. Hey now, I mention him a bunch too... but more to show other players are bad, not to say he's especially good.

Except for the fact no other team will want to give him the raise he'll be getting through arbitration while also giving up compensation. It sounds like most teams are cash strapped, and even if they aren't, they probably still plan on tightening the reigns on their payrolls. Isn't the point of arbitration hearings to find out the fair market value of a player? If no team would be willing to give Fontenot the raise you think he could get, then how can that raise be his fair market value? Because fair market value isn't defined as what they're willing to spend on him, it's defined by what teams were willing to spend last year on players similar to him.

Except he is.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out the obsession with batting guys in the 2 hole even though they aren't particularly good hitters. I'd be inclined to say that if every single team in baseball simply took their 2 hole hitter, batted them 8th, and moved everybody up to compensate that league scoring would go up by quite a bit