Rob

That would certainly make Pie expendable in the eyes of the Cubs' brass. I don't care for Pie, but if the possible acquisition of Coco I Dropped The Soap! Cirsp making anybody "expendible" in the Cubs eyes, we're in big trouble. I'd rather have Pie starting than Crisp without question. We are talking about a fast guy who steals bases and plays awesome defense at an up-the-middle position. Of course Hendry and Lou are going to love him. And I'm sure the Cubs will try to teach him to switch hit.

That would certainly make Pie expendable in the eyes of the Cubs' brass.

I'd be interested in grabbing Piazza as our backup catcher/bat off the bench, assuming he came cheaply enough. I just really hate the idea of going into the season counting on Henry Blanco.

If Sean is traded, I hope you'll still stick around here.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say. If I was to rank the power 1st basemen (regardless of the steroids stuff) from the 1990's-early 00's...I'd go: Jeff Bagwell Mark McGwire Raffy Palmeiro Jim Thome Todd Helton Fred McGriff Jason Giambi Andres Galaraga I probably missed a few. From what we've seen so far from the Voters if your a juicer you aren't getting in or your gonna have to wait to get in. The top three fit that bill. Helton's numbers where inflated from Coors . Thome could play another 3 seasons and surpass 600 homers and finsh with over 2000 hits. When has Bagwell ever been found to have abused steroids? And for that matter, when has he even been accused by a reputable member of the fourth estate? Unless I'm mistaken, he's never been connected at all. If that's the case, he's innocent until proven guilty. Same as Sosa.

Over 200 wins, barely over 100 losses, and a postseason resume that's very flattering. I'm not saying he deserves to get in, but the New York media is gonna force the issue enough that we're gonna be listening to arguments in his favor for quite a while.

Pedro has to be on that list. Whoops. I was just looking through the B-R team pages, and I guess I just stopped looking when Pelfrey and Brian freaking Lawrence were listed...

Let's just list out the people that we're likely to at least see arguments about if these guys retired tomorrow. Positions will be defined by where they played most often. Catchers: Mike Piazza Ivan Rodriguez Jorge Posada First Basemen: Jim Thome Todd Helton Carlos Delgado Albert Pujols (assuming he gets three years of padding his stats, he'll get it based on his peak) Second Basemen: Jeff Kent Third Basemen: Chipper Jones Scott Rolen Shortstops: Alex Rodriguez Derek Jeter Nomar Garciaparra Miguel Tejada Omar Vizquel Left Fielders: Barry Bonds Manny Ramirez Center Fielders: Ken Griffey Jr. Jim Edmonds Right Fielders: Gary Sheffield Sammy Sosa Vladamir Guerrero Designated Hitters: Frank Thomas Starting Pitchers: Roger Clemens Greg Maddux Tom Glavine Randy Johnson Pedro Martinez Curt Schilling Mike Mussina John Smoltz Andy Pettitte David Wells Kenny Rogers Relief Pitchers: Trevor Hoffman Mariano Rivera Billy Wagner

Teams don't sign guys to new contracts and then trade them. It's over. Bronson Arroyo begs to differ.

Not an insider, some guy who is making sure to preface everything by saying it's probably false. His post started out with this: That "some guy" is supposedly Roy Firestone... though considering how much trouble he has not sounding like a 13 year old, I sincerely doubt it is.

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.