Rob

I interpreted that to mean when Dusty screwed something up, it stayed screwed up. Yeah, that's what I was shooting for. Dusty may have stuck it to us, but at no point were we uncertain it was coming... it was just what he had been doing for the last few weeks.

I must have missed the part where Lou didn't actually make any of the mistakes I listed on the first page. How sophomoric of me.

you're going to wait that long? i'm already on the "lou sucks" bandwagon. I was pissed off about the signing when we made it... then he did such a great job in the offseason and talked such a great game. It was obviously too good to be true, though. We would have been much better off with Fredi Gonzalez.

Lou has been such a tease this year. He flirts with good ideas, and then discards them. Use Theriot as the everyday SS to get Izturis out of the lineup? Let's do it for a week and then can the idea. Guzman as our fifth starter? Let's give him three starts, and then pull him after he only gave up a single run in two of them. Murton at the top of the lineup? Let's try it a few times to start off the season and then use him in a strict platoon. Pie in CF? Let's give him 50 PA to work through his adjustment phase and then use him strictly as a defensive replacement and pinch runner. And that's not even saying anything about his absolutely horrid managing of the bullpen and his insatiable need to double-switch when unnecessary. Oh, and how many bad times he's picked to try hit-and-runs. After Pagan's 0/4 night, I fully expect Jacque to start against the next five lefties. I'm actually starting to miss Dusty Baker. At least his mistakes were made once, and you knew what they were after you saw the lineup card... and you always knew he'd bugger the pitch count. But at least as we went in to close games, you didn't know he'd be doing his best to proactively ruin our chances come the sixth inning. Anybody else here noticing Fredi Gonzalez has a better win% in Florida with crappier players?

Daryle Ward does look like he could do a fair bit more damage than JD.

I can already see Lou putting in his small ball lineup tomorrow night in anticipation of making this a running game. We'll get 4 runs, three on a home run, and lose 7-4.

The trick is to use the Cubs as your "my luck could always be worse" excuse. Everytime something unexpected and horrible happens to me, I watch something worse happen to the Cubs that night, never unexpected... but still horrible.

Isn't that where we get thrown out after Aramis's pants fall around his ankles and trip him up between 2nd and 3rd?

nah, we'll get a fake rally 2nd and 3rd 1 out in the 9th, then 2 strikeouts. No, it'll be Hoffman in the 9th. The fake rally happens this inning, because nothing will happen against the hoff. I think Murt pulls one down the left field line but gets thrown out trying to advance to 2nd.

Was that a straight SB or did Lou call another damn hit and run?

You know what would have been awesome? PH Floyd for Izturis.

Son of a... This is what I get for not just re-watching the Lost finale.

Leaving Izzy on the bench at the start of the game would have been the better move.

Aramis' grand slam? I think all of the grand slams have come with the bases loaded I think the bases were empty for DLee's.

I would have rather he laid down a neifi-style bunt there.

DAMN IT!!!

Going 3-10 in a September callup is far from a huge success. The other teams and GM's who passed on Brown were correct. Beane was the one who was wrong. No offense to Beane, it happens to everybody. Sorry, but I'm still inclined to think the fact that Beane's longshot gave even a modicum of production to the big league club and the fact that Cincinatti and Montreal's sure things at #3 and #5 still haven't made it out of A ball makes this a notch in the win column for Beane. Even had Brown never made it past AAA, it still does show that performance analysis can be just as valuable as conventional tools-oriented scouting... making Moneyball a success. How is that a success at all? Brown was never good, and the only reason he ever made it to the majors was, most likely, because he was a former first round pick. And the only reason Grueler and Everts aren't in the MLB is because of injuries; it happens to every team. I'm not sure how Brown's failure equals a success for performance-based analysis. People before the draft said he sucked, Beane took him and, sure enough, he sucked. Surprisingly, the two legitimate first round talents he took (Swisher and Blanton) ended up being productive players. All the Moneyball draft shows is that, no matter what approach you take, the draft is a crap-shoot, and you shouldn't use one approach at the expense of all others. If you call Brown's draft selection a success, we better keep you away from the Cubs before you give Hendry an extension. I'll go ahead and admit I may have jumped the gun, but I think everybody expects far too much from the #35 overall pick, sooo... Since 1970, people taken with the #35 pick. Ron Kinner Dennis DeBarr George Lusic Eddie McMahon Gary Harqis Mitch Lukevics Tom Hawk Linvel Mosby Edwin Hook Scott Glanz Jim Weaver Mark Langston Jim Opie Mickey Brantley Matt Kinzer Mike Schooler Cliff Brantley Terry Jorgensen Wynn Beck Brian Hunter Stan Spencer Jeff Ware Johnny Damon Todd Dunn Sean Johnston Mark Bellhorn Jason Marquis Mark Fischer Aaron Rowand Brian West Tyrell Godwin J.D. Martin Luis Atilano Matt Fox Cesar Ramos Kylar Burke Only Langston, Damon, Bellhorn, Marquis, and Rowand have any success drafted from that spot in the last 36 years. While it's too early to tell on the most recent draft picks, none are looking too strong. So yeah, it's possible to find a valuable major leaguer at that point, but it's the exception rather than the rule. Even getting a guy to the majors is a success of sorts, is what I guess I was trying to say, and the further you get from the top five picks, the faster your chances of getting anything from them fall off a cliff.

I was gonna say - maybe you're onto something here. I say keep him in the rotation except when his special time of the month comes, then give him a bottle of Midol and a "Steel Magnolias" DVD and put him in the bullpen. I thought Midol came in pill form? :?

I've moved into the top 100! Sitting at 99 with an ESPN of 194. Once Scotty Pods comes back and Randy Winn comes down to earth, I should be in pretty good shape.

Sorry, crappy puns are fun though. Somebody in my league just dropped Cano, and I had to drop Kendrick earlier because I didn't have a place to put him after he got injured. Right now, I'm holding on to BJ Upton. Stats are R, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OBP. I've got top waiver priority, so I'm assured of being able to grab Cano once he's eligibile, and Kendrick is just sitting on the waiver wire. I can't decide which of the three to go with, though. Opinions?

Going 3-10 in a September callup is far from a huge success. The other teams and GM's who passed on Brown were correct. Beane was the one who was wrong. No offense to Beane, it happens to everybody. Sorry, but I'm still inclined to think the fact that Beane's longshot gave even a modicum of production to the big league club and the fact that Cincinatti and Montreal's sure things at #3 and #5 still haven't made it out of A ball makes this a notch in the win column for Beane. Even had Brown never made it past AAA, it still does show that performance analysis can be just as valuable as conventional tools-oriented scouting... making Moneyball a success.

I say we trade for him. His trade value has to be at a low, and his actual value to this team would be pretty high. Not only that, but it'd keep him away from his wife. Win-win!

Considering what a crapshoot the draft is, I'd count Brown's limited ML playing time as a huge success of the Moneyball philosophy. Beane was able to draft somebody that everybody hated, was mocked extensively for it, and yet his player still made the big leagues while others from that draft haven't even come close... including the number 3 and 5 overall picks.

Stupid Cubs have to ruin my freaking evening.

Oh yeah, see, all innings pitched be relievers are inherently more leveraged than those pitched by starters. So much so that his 1.2 IP of mop-up work has already surpassed anything he could have done in 5 or 6 innings during a start.