Rob

You guys think Cedeno could get some of the CF duty against tough Lefties? I have no idea if he's any good in center, but if he's serviceable, that would further the chance of Cedeno being a valuable member of the team. We have a huge hole @ SS, regardless of what our organization thinks about Theriot. I expect it will become apparent to even them if Theriot is given the starting job. I think thats rather obvious. Lou has shown no real signs of sticking with a crappy player when he has a better option floating around. Lou is shooting alot of BS. On Friday's Chicago Tribune Live, Lou pointed out that the only spot open for competition is CF and never once mentioned Cedeno as a possibility at SS. I think Cedeno is going to be traded because Lou doesn't have the confidence in him to give him a chance to compete for a job. If there is one thing we should have learned about Lou last year, it was that everyone was given a chance to compete for every job. Everyone acts like Lou was Dusty-stubborn last year. If Theriot starts slow or has a bad spring training and Cedeno is lighting it up, you are crazy if you don't think Lou will make a switch. Matt Murton disagrees...but otherwise I think this is a fair statement. I'm sure Lou had at least a little something to say about acquiring and using the likes of Monroe, Kendall, Trachsel, etc. over Murton, Soto, and Marshall/Gallagher. I've posted before saying that Lou will play a youngster as long as the youngster is "lighting it up", but at crunch time he wants and plays the veterans. So that explains why Kendall got most of the playing time at catcher over Soto the last couple weeks of the season and the playoffs. Oh wait... If you'll remember all the quotes, Lou had every intention of playing Kendall over Soto... Soto just wasn't letting it happen.

I may have been unclear in my original sentiment. The point was more that, when the substantive statistics behind the two hitters in question aren't significantly different, advocating one because he fits the mold of a "traditional" leadoff hitter doesn't make sense. Using position in the order as a defining characteristic is what is arbitrary, not the difference between the two spots in the order. Right. Because Albert Pujols would be just as valuable batting leadoff as he is batting 3rd, right? You don't think Albert Pujols batting an additional 40 times per season would help to offset most of the difference? Actually, Tom Tango advocates batting Pujols second in that lineup.... food for thought.

I may have been unclear in my original sentiment. The point was more that, when the substantive statistics behind the two hitters in question aren't significantly different, advocating one because he fits the mold of a "traditional" leadoff hitter doesn't make sense. Using position in the order as a defining characteristic is what is arbitrary, not the difference between the two spots in the order. I know what you meant. I'm just a nitpicker.

Its not your opinion that is the problem. It is your lack of any substantive evidence whatsoever to back it up. Simply saying that "the Cubs want a new leadoff hitter" has absolutely no weight in proving that getting a new leadoff hitter would make any difference whatsoever. The leadoff position is utterly arbitrary. As I stated earlier, you might as well advocate for the Cubs to get a new #7 hitter. Its equally arbitrary and would have roughly the exact same effect on the lineup that a new #1 would have. Not really, a leadoff hitter gets probably an extra 120 PA over the #7 hitter over the course of the season. That reminds me... another anachronism... the #2 hitter with "good bat control" who can lay down a bunt or hit and run. Puhleaze. Batting Theriot or somebody like that #2 hurts the team considerably, simple because he's taking away plate appearances from somebody who can actually hit.

I get it... "grow out of it" is code for "become incapable of processing new information." Being older isn't an excuse for being inaccurate. I don't care if you had to walk six miles uphill in the snow to make your post, it's still wrong. Any why is it wrong? Because there is no Sabermetric to measure what an effective leadoff hitter means to a team? What is it with so many on here who think everything has to be measurable by some ridiculous formula to be valid? It's not that they're incapable of measuring it. It's just that the measurement is zero. It's not that the value is zero. It's just that the measurement is small enough to be far, far less important than just adding good hitters whatever spot they happen to bat in. Leave my hyperbole alone!!! Honestly though, the myth of the prototypical leadoff hitter has been disproven time and time again. If you want to pretend lineup order matters much (and it really doesn't), then what the studies actually show is that an entirely different approach to the one we use now is optimal. Speed is much more important lower in the lineup as opposed to higher, for instance.

I get it... "grow out of it" is code for "become incapable of processing new information." Being older isn't an excuse for being inaccurate. I don't care if you had to walk six miles uphill in the snow to make your post, it's still wrong. Any why is it wrong? Because there is no Sabermetric to measure what an effective leadoff hitter means to a team? What is it with so many on here who think everything has to be measurable by some ridiculous formula to be valid? It's not that they're incapable of measuring it. It's just that the measurement is zero.

Oh, come on. I thought I was being rather clever.

This page has been viewed over 110,000 times. :shock:

I get it... "grow out of it" is code for "become incapable of processing new information." Being older isn't an excuse for being inaccurate. I don't care if you had to walk six miles uphill in the snow to make your post, it's still wrong.

There's no debate to the matter. There's a right answer, and a wrong answer. Just because Hendry may agree with you doesn't mean that it was the logical course of action. It would just mean Hendry is every bit as confused as you are as to what actually makes baseball players valuable.

Meanwhile, over in reality... 1.) SS 2.) SP ---cutoff point for what is actually necessary--- 3.) CF 4.) Closer Not on list: Leadoff hitter

Getting Joe Nathan would be great... if we didn't have much more pressing holes. Unfortunately, we do. A real SS and some SP would help out a lot more than Nathan would.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7744864/Padres-will-take-it-slow-with-injury-prone-Prior I don't really know how much better of prospects they'd get. Gally is our best pitching prospect. Maybe they are buying into the Colvin is a very good prospect rumor that has floated around the baseball circle recently, and would take him instead of Murton or something? Probably Marquis, plus two of Gallagher, Colvin, Veal... maybe Ceda.

Just because I can... I ran the baseballmusings lineup analysis tool, making a very unrealistic assumption our starters were Soto, Lee, Roberts, Cedeno, Ramirez, Soriano, Pie, and Fukudome With a league average pitcher, this lineup scores 5.533 runs per game. Fukudome Ramirez Soto Soriano Lee Pie Cedeno Pitcher Roberts I just find it hilarious that Hendry is trying to acquire a top of the order hitter who would help our team most batting 9th.

I still think it's funny that people think Roberts would bat leadoff. Lou wants to split up the lefties. Putting Roberts at leadoff would not accomplish that. Furthermore, Soriano signed with the understanding that he was our leadoff hitter. Hell, that's how Hendry introduced him at his press conference. Soriano Roberts Lee Ramirez Fukudome That's your front five, if we acquire Roberts. The rest depends on if it costs us Pie or not.

No, he's worth that. Teams just wont pay it.

MacPhail had been asking for Marmol, but I can't see Hendry and Lou being willing to give him up.

What? Brad Wilkerson has signed with Seattle... which wouldn't make much sense if this trade doesn't go through, what with Ibanez, Ichiro, and Jones set in the outfield, with Sexson at first, and Vidro the DH.

Kevin Goldstein at BP put up his top 100 list. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7092 37. Geovany Soto 45. Josh Vitters

Who told you!?

Someone on Orioles Hangout said that Pie wasn't in the deal. I think he had a source too, but I'm too lazy to check. If it was 2 for 1 without Pie, maybe its Gallagher/Colvin. It was a Cubs fan, and apparently it was Rosnethal who said that last night. Oh, that was me. And yes, I have heard something from somebody I trust that said Pie wasn't involved. But he was going out on a limb based on what he had heard. It's one of those ugly friend-of-a-friend-who-is-close-to-a-guy things.

If we really trade Pie and Gallagher for Brian Roberts, I'm gonna be livid.

Sissy. I didn't say that would stop me from drinking it, did I?

I actually expect to see Veal up in our pen by mid-August. I have a feeling that this is a breakout year for him.

Nobody does. Though surprisingly, he hasn't muffed that up too badly. Ceda has no business being in a top five simply because he's a reliever, but I can't find much fault with including the others in the top 4.