Rob

A bit crazy... I like it in a clubhouse leader.

Polished college switch hitting catchers are all the rage now.

Personally, I'd really like to see the Scott Moore experiment at SS keep going. If he can handle it even relatively poorly, his bat would be a huge improvement over Izturis.

Oh, in the minors, of course. The minors are there to evaluate players, not to win games. If I find out somebody can steal like Beltran or Ichiro, that's another story entirely... but those kinds of guys are few and far between.

Loving the lineup. It's far from the most effective lineup that could be placed out there, but it's probably the closest we'll get without completely overturning conventional baseball wisdom... a task better reserved for shouting matches at the bar.

I've always leaned towards more aggressive running with more information. There's nothing more important as far as predicting what will likely occur if you know the times for the runner, P, and C. Given current SB ratios, I can't imagine any intelligent manager wanting a player's SB ratio more than the times of the runner, P, and C. Accumulative stats go in the toilet compared to play by play data, I'm glad the stat world is catching up to that idea. On top of knowing the times of the runner, P, and C, it's also important to know the judgement of the players involved. As a general rule, giving somebody like Soriano or Juan Pierre the green light to steal pretty much whenever they feel like it is a horrible idea. On the other hand, I had no problem with Maddux getting the green light. He steals once a year if and only if he has a perfect read. I guess what I'm saying is that for anyone short of the absolute most intelligent players in the game, SB are a valuable tool only if executed well, and the situations well evaluated.

I would also like to remind everybody that playing in a small field like Wrigley would most likely depress his offensive value a bit.

So from what I gather you'd essentially be trading Jones for a necessary piece to move in a trade for an unknown third person? From what I understand though, Victorino is exactly Gillick's kind of ballplayer. We might have better luck getting them to foot a small portion of the bill for Burrell. Then we could keep him or eat some more cash and send him somewhere.

If memory serves correctly, only three teams last year had a net positive in EqSBR. Seeing as how everybody keeps posting random hypothetical situations regarding when to give the green light, I would always lean towards not letting him cost the team runs. Of course, there are extreme circumstances that would change the value of a stolen base enough to make it a worthwhile risk... but those should be handled on an individual basis.

I don't know about you, but when I saw the topic title my blood started boiling... then I read the actual proposal. I don't understand why we'd want to give up Jones and Murton for him, let alone the pitchers. I don't think a one of us on this board doubts that if we gave a straight platoon in RF to Jones and Murton, they'd outproduce Ichiro by quite a bit. That's not even to mention the cost, or the availability of a prime bat on the bench. If we're looking to upgrade this team, all we have to do is take at bats against lefties away from Jacque Jones and throw Izturis in a volcano. Why we'd trade for an expensive outfielder that's a hamstring strain away from being Tony Womack is beyond me.

I could see Cotts-Guzman and Mateo being ready but not Miller or Marshall as they seem to be in the same boat as Prior. Who's the Don? The Baby Cow

Of all threads, how did I miss this one?

I don't think Pujols has been a consensus #1 pick for that long now... especially when ARod still had SS eligibility.

After Gooz, I'd imagine it probably depends on whose spot in the rotation matches up closely enough.

Peter Griffon is that you? Taste that? It's beach justice!

I was adamantly against signing Lou this offseason. Damned if he hasn't made me feel a bit foolish up to this point, though. His work getting free agents to come here was admirable (if ill-advised in certain cases) and his quotes have been inspiring. At this point though, I must remind everybody... it's easy to say the right things. I want to see him coming through with the right actions in the regular season before I decide to annoint him my new saviour. However, my fears have been allayed a bit.

Ok, I know I'm responding to this again, and I'll let you know why. When you said "Now that is a bad contract," by nature, that seems to imply that you are naturally comparing his contract to other ones, obviously more sane ones. I took this to mean you meant in comparison to our contracts, seeing as how this is a Cubs' board. Lilly and Marquis immediately jumped to my mind as having worse contracts than Pettitte, and I went on to illustrate the reasons why. Those reasons were production and the length of the contract, which are certainly sound reasons. Not one person here will argue Lilly or Marquis is better than Pettitte, and I doubt many would deny that one year contracts for pitchers are a good idea, especially considering the pitching depth coming up in our farm system. At any rate, I find it hard to decide whether a contract is "good" or "bad" without a context applied to it.If Santana signed a contract this offseason for 5 million, it'd put the Pettitte signing in a certain context, and if Russ Ortiz got a 100 million dollar contract, it would do the same. Viewing things as "good" or "bad" cannot be done in a vaccuum, those terms are obviously meant to compare things to one another. I was merely pointing out that in relation to many of the outlandish pitching contracts signed this offseason, the Pettitte one was certainly better than two of ours, and I'm sure many others that were signed. At that point, one can draw their own conclusions as to where it falls in the spectrum between "good" and "bad." In looking at this last offseaon, I'd say it falls between "average" and "good;" looking at all-time, I'd say it is probably "bad."

Not really. It's a one year deal, and Pettitte got his home run rate back in check in the second half, allowing him to post a 2.80 ERA. I'd rather have that deal than the Lilly or Marquis deal. There's almost no chance Lilly or Marquis earns their keep over the next few years, but there's a significantly higher chance that Pettitte can do it for next year only. If it would have worked out, fantastic... if it didn't, he wouldn't be blocking Guzman, Veal, or Gallagher in 2008. I wouldn't... Pettitte is only about 15% better than the average pitcher over the course of his career. Is that worth $16M? I sure don't think so. You'd rather have Lilly for 4 years and 40 mil, when he's never been anything special, or Marquis for 3 years and 21 million fresh off an ERA over 6? Both of those guys have a pretty high chance to implode and become impossible to move. At least with Pettitte you retain roster flexibility and don't block your best prospects.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand what the point of including this note was? Cart blanche Special assistant to the general manager Gary Hughes spent much of the last couple of weeks driving around from field to field on a golf cart with instructions printed on the front: "Do Not Steal, Maim or Mutilate Gary or the golf cart." Hughes related a story of a recent conversation with Bill Murray, the No. 1 celebrity Cubs fan, who invited him to play golf. "There's something on my golf cart I want you to see," the Wilmette native told Hughes. "I think you'll really like it." "What's that?" Hughes asked. "Cupholders," Murray replied. Any excuse to relate a Bill Murray deadpan, I'd imagine.

Not really. It's a one year deal, and Pettitte got his home run rate back in check in the second half, allowing him to post a 2.80 ERA. I'd rather have that deal than the Lilly or Marquis deal. There's almost no chance Lilly or Marquis earns their keep over the next few years, but there's a significantly higher chance that Pettitte can do it for next year only. If it would have worked out, fantastic... if it didn't, he wouldn't be blocking Guzman, Veal, or Gallagher in 2008.

Got an email addy?

The average lifespan for a Type 1 Diabetic when he broke into the league was 25 years. If he's lasted this long, he may as well keep on living another 67 years (which I would love).

Does anybody know exactly when the results will be announced?

With their payroll if the Cubs fail to contend in a league this crummy then Hendry should be shot out of a cannon Do you honestly believe every single one of those predictions and believe there will not be one single 90-win team in the whole darn league? Also, if I'm not mistaken most predictions gravitate toward the mean. It's not surprising that no team has an excessive amount of wins. Do they use pythagorean wins based on RS/RA? This would account for the lack of outliers. IIRC, the Cubs often underachieve relative to pythagorean predictions Close. They use pythaganport with AEqR and AEqRA Pythaganport - A modified form of Bill James' pythagorean formula. Instead of using a fixed exponent (2, 1.83), the "pythagenport" formula derives the exponent from the run environment - the more runs per game, the higher the exponent. The formula for the exponent was X = .45 + 1.5 * log10 ((rs+ra)/g), and then winning percentage is calculated as (rs^x)/(rs^x + ra^x). The formula has been tested for run environments between 4 and 40 runs per game, but breaks down below 4 rpg. AEqR -The number of equivalent runs scored by a team, adjusted for the quality of their opponent's pitching and defense. AEqRA - The number of equivalent runs allowed by a team, adjusted for the quality of their opponent's offense.

Of course players need regular PA to be better hitters. Why do you think PH numbers for regulars are almost always such much worse in the aggregate than their normal numbers?