Rob

The Brewers hold a 5M option on Cordero... something I assume they'll exercise, otherwise they probably would have grabbed a young live arm from Texas in the Lee trade. As of Sept. 9th, Kevin Towers out in San Diego was saying he saw Branyan in the Padres plans. I see him staying there for at least next season. And I have been all about Craig Wilson for a couple years... that man has been getting screwed. Helms and Weaver don't interest me much... Hillenbrand might be worth picking up. He always has a nice first half, and we could trade him for a decent prospect or two come the deadline... provided our coach doesn't challenge him to fisticuffs. Only problem is, he'd never agree to be strictly a bench bat.

Holy Frijoles! I think that's the first thing we've agreed upon so far.

You mean to tell me "giving 110%" and "pushing it to the limit" isn't exactly the sort of thing that instigates freak injuries? At any rate, perhaps my vitrol got to be a bit much while making such a backhanded comment. I think it's fairly obvious to both of us that it's very unlikely "most" of your players wouldn't end up on the DL. The ones most at risk are the high-talent ones, though... the ones accustomed to loafing when hustle is counterproductive. Those are the people I would least like injured. If you want to play your cards like that, you may as well go with... "Nuh uh... pitchers use their arms! Fielders are more likely to hurt their legs!" I'm not saying asking a player to hustle real hard all of one game is the same as asking a pitcher to go 130 pitches. I'm saying that asking a player to give it 110% for 162 games is like letting your starting pitcher average about 110 pitches a game. Only a select few can even come close to that without catastrophic results, be it appearing in the form of injury or simple fatigue-related performance decline. I will grant you that you did mention that if given the job as a manager you said you would give your players more frequent days off. The one thing that could give your argument any validity whatsoever (in my eyes at least...) is if you could tell me approximately how often you would play certain guys. A healthy Lee, an oft injured Aramis, Barrett, and Murton are the ones that interest me most. Don't pull that double switch w/me, that crap don't work. That was in regards to Rowand and the potential of injury from increased effort not some injured player people think is loafing out there. Perhaps this is merely a semantic argument we can clear up. Can we both agree you shouldn't have put the word "always" in your quote? Given the fact I've been drinking Crown Royal the last 5 hours, I'll give this a bit more of a concilliatory approach. I get peeved when the runners don't even bother to touch first base on a routine groundout. I find it extremely offensive that the players can't even be bothered to launch the minimum effort required to reach the bag. It may just be the liquor, but I'm becoming confused as to what exactly your stance is... so I think it'd be best if I put "running it out" in most certain terms. How would you feel for the following: 1. Aramis hits a hard grounder to Scott Rolen at third, which he fields cleanly before Aramis is hardly out of the box. Aramis jogs to first, touches the bag (clearly out by a mile) and trots back to the dugout. 2. Aramis bounces one back up the middle that Maddux fields cleanly inside of half a second. Aramis trots to first, touches the bag (out once more) and trots back to the dugout. 3. Aramis hits a routine grounder to Everett at short. He hustles out of the box, but slows down once he sees the ball hit Berkman's glove at first... still touching the bag and then trotting back. 4. Same as above, but it's a hard grounder. Aramis only trots out of the box, as Everett already has the ball in his glove before Aramis is even a quarter down the first base line. 5. Aramis hits a routine grounder up the first base line to Helton. Once again, he hustles until Helton touches the bag... Aramis then loafs up the line to touch first, turns around, and trots back. Sorry to force such answers out of you. I'm just curious and maybe a bit drunk. However, let me point out this fact... ARAMIS IS ESSENTIALLY ALWAYS INJURED. No, that does not excuse the lack of a great offseason conditioning programs. But the fact remains that he is almost always injured, or on the verge of being injured. Since you yourself admitted that there's a difference with injured players, why doesn't Aramis get a pass? BTW, I retain the right to alter my arguments contained in this post.... Stupid wonderful Crown Royal.

You wouldn't have to rest your players if you were the manager. Most would get plenty of DL time in. And no, there's really not a whole lot of separation in the pitching analogy. On both sides, you're leaving your body out there in a position where it will deteriorate given that it's left in such high stress situations for longer than advisable. You're attempting to force the players to hustle irregardless of health issues... that's not at all dissimilar from leaving a pitcher out there after 120 pitches irregardless of the health issues. Smooth move trying to allude to me being like Dusty. But it has absolutely nothing to do with a veteren preference. It's called being a realist. Andruw Jones at 19 had good knees and the ability to heal quickly. Barry Bonds at 41 barely has knees and cannot heal quickly at all. If you honestly want to pretend you're the same player, that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. And can you honestly tell me that... is anything but short-sighted? It's the utter definition of it! You're potentially giving up large future gains for satisfaction in the short term. You can argue to how sane an idea it may be, but not how short-sighted it is most of the time.

One more time, cause I don't think most people have picked up on this yet. The Cubs had forced Ryan Theriot to switch-hit. He gave up on this prior to last season. His minor league numbers aren't nearly as useful as they would be if he still switch-hit. Last year is likely more indicitive of his true level of ability than the previous years.

Maybe she has herpes of the mouth? If that's the case, I want them too.

Don't presume I'd rather Aramis loaf than get in shape. The question rises in whether or not his body can physically take 162 games, no matter how hard he works? I don't believe he can survive without getting a few too many of those nagging injuries he's become so famous for. My passion has become insane for this game, now that I see it as the art form that it is. I see baseball everywhere I go... I see it everytime I sit through physics class... A lack of hustle is an errant brushstroke. A bad front office direction is an 800 pound gorilla falling on your water lillies. That's an extremely short-sighted view to take. Tell me, is the blatant abuse of our pitching staff in 2003 working out well for us? Those "gamers" in our rotation really "gave it their all" for 120 pitches a game. Sorry, I had missed it. Bobby Cox certainly made the right decision, as he is apt to do. Once again, he has the foresight necessary to avoid silly short-sighted decisions. He recognized that the cost of Andruw coming out for one game would possibly positively benefit his team down the road... putting a work ethic into a young, impressionable player. But it's important to note that Andruw Jones was 19 and needed direction. Pulling Barry Bonds in that situation now wouldn't net you a bloody thing. I really do find it odd that you essentially refuse to believe anything but the short-sighted view of hustle in guys like Aramis could be wrong... while simultaneously trying to use an example where Bobby Cox was trying to use the situation to bring about more long-term success as the basis for your argument.

Just to point something out, Ron. Most statheads, including myself, would rather have the 1987 version of Ozzie Smith than any current incarnation of Miguel Tejada we've seen.

Yeah, I'd appreciate it if you could find that.

I trust them more than Range Factor or UZR. What do you use?

Actually, I'm fairly convinced one of my giant tomes sitting on the bookshelf came to the opposite conclusion... though it was quite a close outcome. I suppose tomorrow I'll get to digging through the books and trying to figure out how they came to that conclusion. I don't want to hijack this thread and I don't know what book you have, but I think it's wrong. And I'm pretty sure Tango Tiger and Bill James agree with me. The folks at FJM have this in their definition of OPS: I'm not going to take the time to search for more support at this point, like I said, I don't want to hijack the thread, but I just wanted to point that out. Oh, I'm certainly not convinced of it either. I was just trying to point out it's still occassionally disputed in logical terms. IIRC, the study was something to the effect of team SLG historically having a higher correlation with winning percentage than OBP alone... though neither way attempted to control the influence of other factors. Personally, I tend to go with EqA when I can be bothered to look it up.

Garcia's 87 MPH fastball just screams "paging Doctor Andrews" to me... I want to be nowhere near him.

FRAR and FRAA... you can probably grab them over at baseballprospectus without needing a subscription.

His defense in LF is average at best. In CF he would be among the NL's worst defenders. The only fielding stat I trust has him coming in at 12 runs better than the average LF... a very significant margin.

Actually, I'm fairly convinced one of my giant tomes sitting on the bookshelf came to the opposite conclusion... though it was quite a close outcome. I suppose tomorrow I'll get to digging through the books and trying to figure out how they came to that conclusion.

If he's hurt, then he collects. If he retires, then he does not. I had figured as much. In that case, I buy myself a lot of tequila and see what happens in 2008.

What do you mean? Like having foresight?

The best baseball is played by the best players... and Ramirez has shown time and time again his legs can't stand a 162 game season. Why put unnecessary stress on those legs? Whether I'm a Cubs fan or just a baseball fan in general, I'd rather see the best players out there than guys like Jose Macias... even if it means Aramis doesn't run out a meaningless grounder in an already lost game. Small cost occassionally for a big gain over the course of a season... seems like a no brainer to me. And in response to your question, it's extremely illogical. It's akin to having found out you're paralyzed from the waist down... and being most upset that you can't wiggle your toes anymore. The only reason you feel the way you do is some sort of emotional attachment. While emotional attachment isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's most certainly illogical in this case. No. There really wasn't anything wrong with what Rowand did then. Bases loaded and two outs... he saved a bases clearing double, even if it was only the first inning. But I sure wouldn't want him doing that when you're already down 10 runs in the ninth. One nice play can cost him and his team a lot. Fluke or whatever you want to call it, without his hustle it wouldn't have happened. There's simply no debate. I don't see anybody on my side of the fence proclaiming that hustle is always horrible. Why are you so bloody adamant that it's always good? Are you even willing to admit there's an obvious tradeoff in health?

I'm not sure on this... does he have to make an attempt to play in order to collect on the remainder of his contract? I do remember Mo Vaughn was in "rehab" for his knees for a few years, presumably to collect his paychecks. Just wondering...

So you're saying that the biggest problem isn't the one that angers you most? That's a rather illogical route to take... even for a fellow Cubs fan. So what you're trying to say is that in the bottom of the ninth, in a 15-4 rout... Aramis should be hustling out routine grounders to first? Hustle is just like anything else. Too much is counterproductive. Ask Aaron Rowand.

I think the Cubs need to sign a top FA pitcher (Schmidt). I think there are cheaper FA position players that could help the Cubs (Durham, C. Wilson). I think the impact bat is going to have to come from a trade. there aren't many pitchers out there either and they are even riskier. I would rather build an 850 run lineup and then worry about pitching. Yeah, but is Soriano going to be a help or a hindrance towards an 850 run lineup? He'd most likely help, but not for what we'd have to pay him. I'd rather sink less money into Trot Nixon and Craig Wilson as platoonmates and slide Murton into a platoon with Jacque in right, which would also give us a big bat off the bench and another decent bat off the bench at any given moment... something we've been sorely missing for a long time. Edit: Of course, that thought is predicated upon viewing Soriano as a LF. If he's a 2B, it could be quite different. Though I do still find myself more inclined to grab Nixon/Wilson and Durham to fill out the holes.

You did say that nothing angers you more than not hustling. As a paying fan, I feel I'm entitled to a quality product... especially considering the cash I've doled out over the years. I'm sure you probably feel the same. Now if what you said earlier was really true, you'd be less offended by a team full of Juan Pierre's than a team of Adam Dunn's. I don't believe that for a second. You and I both know you'd be happier with the team if it was winning than if it wasn't. Hustle aside, you watch the games for the giddy feeling that a winning ballclub can give you. Sure, it'd be wonderful if there was hustle... but it's just the icing on the cake. So if you don't want people to offend you with comparisons like Dunn versus Pierre, don't offend us with asinine rhetoric about lack of hustle being the biggest problem around. It's the lack of a quality product being put before us that has everybody on edge, and I'll call you a liar if you claim it to be anything else.

What do they gain besides making people "feel better?" It's completely arbritary as to whether or not "hustling" would actually change plays significantly and often enough to alter a team's season or even the game being played at the time. Actually reaching or gaining an extra base if a fielder commits a mistake? That's possible even if a fielder doesn't commit a mistake. If Aramis really isn't hustling because he's afraid of injury, he needs to get a trainer this offseason. Aramis not hustling isn't on my top 10 list of Cub problems. Agreed. I can think of at least 10 bigger problems. 1. Dusty 2. Hendry 3. MacPhail 4. Rusch's production and contract 5. Izturis 6. Rothschild 7. A severe lack of a genuine #2-type starter. Somebody has to slot in between Z and Hill. 8. Distinct inability to develop position players. 9. Cedeno's bat and the fact that it wont play at second. 10. Our training staff can't keep anybody healthy. And I didn't even mention Jeff Gordon's singing... blech.

I'd take Earl Weaver over a computer anyday.

Juan Pierre has been doing that. Exactly. We already knew he'd do nothing useful before we got him. Thank you for pointing out how even when he'd doing what's expected of him, he belongs nowhere near a major league squad. It's a very important point.