katway

Even though Wang has durability issues (he had a mysterious stint on the DL last year with some arm problems) and the Yankees need outfield help, it's unlikely they would trade a young pitcher who has shown he can pitch under the pressures of New York. We would have to overpay.

I'm not saying you can't win with him. The Marlins certainly are lucky to have him. However, I wouldn't do "whatever it takes" to get a guy that hasn't learned how to be a pro in the clubhouse. See http://www.palmbeachpost.com/marlins/content/sports/epaper/2006/03/31/a1b_cabrera_0331.html Just my $.02. Never said he wasn't good, never said a team couldn't win with him, just noting that IMO, he isn't worth the farm. I don't view him as being as complete as Pujols (who is worth the farm) and other great players because he doesn't have the right attitude and work ethic to justify "whatever it takes" to land him.

Z may be passionate, but is not a clubhouse cancer with attitude problems.

Just saying I wouldn't trade the farm for this guy...http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2174699&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233 In other words, the team shouldn't be willing to do "whatever it takes" to get a guy who is clubhouse manure. I'd rather go after some other talented young players and give up a little less in a trade. There's no denying his talent, just wouldn't give up whatever it takes to get the guy.

Cabrera is a great talent, but has a poor attitude and work ethic. As much as it would cost to get him, I'd rather go after another player without the attitude and work ethic issues for the long-term future.

We could sign Tino for the 2 weeks a year when he can actually hit the ball. :) Only problem is that we don't know when he will go on the two week hot streak. :?

He signed a very inexpensive contract with the Dbacks (I believe two years at only $1 million per year). At that price I'd be surprised if they don't keep him even if only as insurance against their own injury problems. They'd know that they could suffer key injuries just like anybody else, and at the cost I'd think they'd keep Clark. If that's the case, I think we need to offer them something mildly enticing to get it done because Clark seems like the perfect option. Maybe Marmol or Pignatiello and Theriot? If Hendry makes a move for a first baseman, it will be for a guy that can play another position and thereby still have value once D. Lee returns. Clark is not capable of playing another position.

Nomar would be a nice addition, but I'd never give up a valuable prospect for him at this point. I'd only give them the likes of Rusch, Sing, etc.

Chan Ho Park @ 15.3 million is pretty bad.

Hopefully, his reputation will procede him. Wirtz's ownership of the Blackhawks will only hurt his chances of gaining approval from MLB. He is nationally perceived as one of the worst owners in sport.

4 stolen bases though! Can't make fun of Beltre, kept him in a keeper league thinking he would rebound this year. Not a good idea. At least I picked up Melvin Mora for insurance. It looked like he was going to rebound with the way he was hitting the ball in the WBC, but he strained his hip flexor and hasn't been the same since...

That one was bad, but not quite on par with most of the others mentioned. At least Polanco and Timlin are/were quality ballplayers. Phillies also did not have a good bargaining position since Rolen consistently fueded with management and refused to sign a contract extension with free agency on the horizon. In essence, they knew what they were giving up and had to take players (somewhat decent players in Polanco and Timlin) who were not of Rolen's caliber to make the deal happen and get what they could before he left.

I'd rather see Hairston in a platoon with Jones than Dubois.

You need to read the second article. That number wasn't adjusted for some important factors; defensive alignment, the jump in batter performance with any runner on first, the relative quality of pitchers with runners on vs. with the bases empty, etc. The real benefit is much smaller, somewhere in the order of 0-3 runs per season. The author's numbers are extremely flawed since he compares a select few players that are known as base stealers compared to an overall group that also includes those same base stealers and other leaser known base stealers. It should make a seperate comparison of good base stealers versus poor base stealers. He is cherry picking numbers to try to support his argument when the basis of comparison is flawed. The overlap between the group of all runners and first base and the ones considered stealers is negligible. (About 3% of the 100,000+ sample size.) Removing the stealers from the overall group would have had no significant imapct on the outcome. The results are also verified by his independent method of adjusting for defensive shits and pitcher quality. (Though that method showed a slightly larger disruptive effect.) The analysis is still supportive of my conclusion that a base stealer can disrupt a pitcher's focus on the following batter. Batting average is a much better measure of this effect than runs scored. Runs scored also takes into account that base stealers get caught stealing, thereby reducing the overall number of runs scored. I'm not talking about runs scored... I'm talking about distracting the pitcher. In any event, the analysis is nevertheless flawed as a theoretical matter because the author is comparing a barrel of apples (base stealers) to a mixed barrel of oranges (non-base stealers) and apples (base stealers). The assumption that this error has only a 3% negligible effect is incorrect because it assumes, ipso facto, that the other 97% of runners are non-base stealers. Without doing a statistical analysis, I'd venture to say that more than 3% of baseball players are capable base stealers.

You need to read the second article. That number wasn't adjusted for some important factors; defensive alignment, the jump in batter performance with any runner on first, the relative quality of pitchers with runners on vs. with the bases empty, etc. The real benefit is much smaller, somewhere in the order of 0-3 runs per season. The author's numbers are extremely flawed since he compares a select few players that are known as base stealers compared to an overall group that also includes those same base stealers and other leaser known base stealers. It should make a seperate comparison of good base stealers versus poor base stealers. He is cherry picking numbers to try to support his argument when the basis of comparison is flawed.

Not entirely true. Pierre clearly distracts pitchers when he is on base. The less focussed a pitcher is on the hitter, the better the hitter's chances of getting a pitch he can hit, including homeruns. Those stolen bases may have affected the pitcher, the pitches that are thrown (don't want to throw a slider in the dirt with Pierre on third), etc... Can you prove this? Look at each time Pierre has been on base and see what the results are. It shouldn't be that hard since he's only been on base 8 times this year. Can you disprove it? Can anyone realistically say that pitchers and players on defense are not more concerned when a speedy guy like Pierre is on first base compared to slower players like Ramirez? No one is saying Pierre is always a distraction that improves the hitters behind him, but merely pointing out that his speed can make a difference (relative to other players) when he is on base. In other words, his speed can be a positive factor for those hitting behind him. Part 1 Part 2 This has been studied and quantified. At best the "disruptive" effect amounts to no more than a couple runs a season for even the most prolific of base stealers. That's about the same value derived by talking 5-6 walks. Author of the piece admits 11% increase in batting average. Thanks for proving the point that Pierre can be disruptive and thereby help the hitters who follow him by increasing their batting average. essentially a .300 hitter becomes a .333 hitter with a fast guy on base.

Not entirely true. Pierre clearly distracts pitchers when he is on base. The less focussed a pitcher is on the hitter, the better the hitter's chances of getting a pitch he can hit, including homeruns. Those stolen bases may have affected the pitcher, the pitches that are thrown (don't want to throw a slider in the dirt with Pierre on third), etc... Can you prove this? Look at each time Pierre has been on base and see what the results are. It shouldn't be that hard since he's only been on base 8 times this year. Can you disprove it? Can anyone realistically say that pitchers and players on defense are not more concerned when a speedy guy like Pierre is on first base compared to slower players like Ramirez? No one is saying Pierre is always a distraction that improves the hitters behind him, but merely pointing out that his speed can make a difference (relative to other players) when he is on base. In other words, his speed can be a positive factor for those hitting behind him.

I agree. One superstar player is not a substitute for a quality team of players. Felix is good, but we would be mortgaging the teams future.

Not entirely true. Pierre clearly distracts pitchers when he is on base. The less focussed a pitcher is on the hitter, the better the hitter's chances of getting a pitch he can hit, including homeruns. Those stolen bases may have affected the pitcher, the pitches that are thrown (don't want to throw a slider in the dirt with Pierre on third), etc...

On February 19, 2004, Tribune posted a good article detailing Maddux's original departure. Essentially, he agreed to a contract for $25 million for 5 years following the 1991 season. However, the Cubs renegged on the 5 year deal and Maddux settled for a one year deal to avoid arbitration. the Cubs told Maddux to wait until after the 1992 season. Meanwhile, they renogotiated Ryno's deal during the 1992 spring training. During the 1992 season All-Star Break, the Cubs offered 5 years @ $27 million in take it or leave it fashion and let Boras know that they didn't think a pitcher should be paid as highly as position players and Maddux wasn't that special. Maddux turned down the offer based on the organizations attitude when presenting it to Boras. Following the 1992 season and Maddux's land slide Cy Young award, the Cubs upped their offer slightly for 5 years @ $27.5 million. Boras said the price went up with Maddux's strong performance in 1992 and he wanted 5 years @ 32 million. The Cubs went out and signed Guzman and Randy Myers. Maddux got the Braves offer for 5 years @ $28 million. Maddux presented the Braves offer to Himes and Himes told him they just signed Randy Myers and didn't have the money to sign Maddux. So, Maddux signed with the Braves.

No way Texas takes Rusch in the deal. Koronka had a good spring. But, Rusch had a spirng where he pitched like... Rusch.

Pierre has been a factor thus far even if his performance hasn't always been great. When he gets on base, the pitchers seem to lose focus on the batter and he makes things happen. In addition, his work ethic seems like a great influence on the youngsters. Thus far, he appears to be the best leadoff hitter we've had since Lofton. Given his career averages, he'll likely improve on BA and OBP and be an even bigger factor. A couple bad games can inordinately skew numbers at this point in the year. (A few days ago his BA was near .350 and his OBP was near .400.)

I was hoping it was about Abe Virgoda....the best actor in the history of the world. http://bushisamoron.org/du/timm_abe_vigoda_w_mr.jpg Abe Vigoda - the latest addition to Mount Rushmore.

If I were Prior, I might have also stumbled on the change of scenery question because it was probably unexpected and perplexing. He may have been wondering who are these critics he's refering to.... In any event, Prior is probably not a good interview at a time like this... He's a real competitor and you can tell he is really ticked off about not being able to contribute and is uncomfortable answering questions about it.

Let Pie continue to build confidence at AAA. Give Pagan the time in RF because he is a better fielder than Hairston with a little more pop in his bat. Call up Hill to pitch in the rotation instead of Rusch.