Tracer Bullet

You keep using that word, I do not that it means what you think it means. Inconceivable! Anybody want a peanut? that line makes me laugh much more than it should.

You keep using that word, I do not that it means what you think it means.

in

Kiss of death.

I love me some Jonah Keri

Are you kidding me? No one is saying he had a great night at the plate (though he got on base 33% of his PAs, which is more than several of his teammates can say). But you're claiming his OF play was poor, when it just wasn't. He made both of those plays the way he should. I didn't see the entire game, but I didn't see any plays in RF that would be a strike against him. And no one else has suggested he made bad plays. If anyone is painting this unfairly, it's you.

I don't think that's true. The 2nd guy serves two purposes: backup the first cut off guy on a bad throw to him, and give the OF another target if he can make a good throw to 2nd guy. It makes no sense to make the shorter throw from the OF if you can make the longer one. It's not "overthrowing" the first guy - it's throwing it to the 2nd one.

i think he's worried about someone looking over his shoulder at his IM conversation (or someone monitoring it) Just ask him if we're going to Church today. thought he won't openly discuss it, i'm pretty sure he'll send me some sort of word if the deal is done ask if the Nationals are losing their religion

I don't think that's the situation Carroll is suggesting. If you tell your AGM to call and see if Texas would take Player X for Player Y, you've offered to trade Player X (and Hendry's statement yesterday would be a lie). I'm guessing it's more subtle - AGM calls Texas to see if Player Y is available, they discuss who the Cubs would have to give up to get Player Y. Texas mentions Pie and AGM has been told that Pie is available at the right price, etc etc. It goes from there. The Cubs don't offer Pie, they don't call several teams asking "can we get X for Pie" or "what will you give us for Pie, but when they ask about several different players, maybe some of those teams ask for Pie in return and the Cubs don't flatly say "no - he's untouchable." Just b/c Pie isn't being shopped doesn't mean he won't listen to offers that would include him.

As a stadium usher?

313.558 OPS! Ok, no seriously. If he comes up and is competent at the major league level that would be an awesome story. Even if it is playing for the Cardinals. Just imagine: Bottom of the 9th. Man on 3rd. 1 out. Fly ball. Ankiel catches. Ankiel throws. Ball lands in LF bleachers. Cubs Win! Wouldn't the ball more likely land in the visiting dugout? For some reason, I thought Ankiel's throws starting getting away from him up and away to RH hitters, but I might be wrong about that.

I like DeRo at second too, but when he isn't playing second and giving Fontenot's recent performance I'd start Cedeno at second, not short. Theriot has proven he can handle short. And also, I like your opinion on how to use Cedeno, he seems like the kind of guy who gets other guys hot by starting in their place for a few days. A - what does that even mean? B - is that what Abe said?

Well yeah, that's why he's there. It was a strong throw to Theriot too, so it was probably more effective than if he had hit DeRosa. Which is the whole point of the double cut-off. If the OF can throw it directly to the 2nd cut-off guy, that's better than throwing it to the first. And usually (though not true here) the SS has a much stronger arm than the 2B, so you'd rather have him get the cut-off and relay it to home, 3rd, etc, than have a 2B with a weaker arm and longer throw have to make that relay. Again, DeRosa has a stronger arm than Theriot, but I don't think you fault Murton for hitting the guy he was probably taught to hit at Iowa b/c our SS happens to have a weak arm. I can't believe there's actually a discussion about whether hitting the 2nd cut off guy was "not helping himself" in the OF. That's ridiculous.

Church can play CF. He's a much better option in CF than J. Jones at this point. OPS+ last 3 years: Church: 120, 128, 101 Jones: 99, 107, 67 Plus, his numbers versus lefties are almost as good as his numbers versus righties, so he can play against lefties as well. Yea his numbers in his career are pretty constant vs lefties, I was just looking at this years numbers. where would you hit him in this lineup? 2nd is taken, but with his OBP he would be nice there, he doesnt have much power so I doubt 5th, so Im guessing 7th. Hitting 7th would kind of negate his OBP since Kendall/Hill would be following him. I'd put him 2nd. But if you bat him 6th or 7th, it's not like his OBP serves no purpose. Even at those spots, its better to make outs less often.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. He hasn't faced many lefties in his ML career, but he's got a .353 OBP and .400 SLG against them in 175 or so ABs. So he might not have much power against them, but his on base skills don't disappear against LHP.

If he hits a HR in every game the rest of the season, I'll agree. Heck, I'll even take a HR in every other game.

Sure, except this Ryan Church bats lefty, can catch a flyball and score from third on a ball hit to shortstop. The only valid argument in that post is that he is a left handed bat. Plus he plays CF and hits for power when he isn't at RFK. Both true, but those weren't a part of GaborBako's argument. That said - I'd love to add Church and put him in CF if it can be done cheaply.

he overthrew the cut-off man once. on a basehit to right he also sort of hesitated before throwing the ball, but made a good throw and nothing bad came of it. Are you talking about the play in the 9th when he threw home and Iguchi stopped at third? I didn't seem any hesitation. He may not be lightning fast getting the ball out, but it's not like he double-clutched. And the throw was good.

Cordero hasn't exactly been rock solid for them.

There's a school of thought that call-ups should be thrown right into the lineup, and not sit for 3-4 days once they first come up. If there was anything to be gained by putting him in AAA it was to get him consistent playing time, calling him up and having him sit negates that benefit. If Murton is back here to just play once every 3-4 days, there's really no benefit to having him here. Murton is beyond the point of say, Pie, where sitting on the bench is hampering his production or something. With that said, I honestly believe he was recalled to be showcased, and that isnt even happening. I'm not sure you ever get so old that sitting on the bench doesn't hamper your production. How much can you produce while sitting on the bench? If you meant hamper his development, he's 25 and only played 1.5 years in the majors. I agree w/ goony - benching him for 3-4 days at a time is hampering his development.

Let's re-focus to the point of this convo: The guy hit nearly 400 HRs. While this does not mean he was good, it does mean he was not terrible. Why are you having so much trouble understanding this? I never said he was terrible. I simply asked you to explain why he wasn't. So far, we have a link, 'the stats speak for themselves', and 'the guy hit nearly 400 HR's'. Sure, 400 HR's. Yay. Good total. However, the rest of the numbers that the guy put out in his career are really not very good. Some people would say, *gasp*, that a person who is not very good at baseball, is 'terrible'. Call it hyperbole, call it over-reaction, fine. But at the end of the day, all you are doing is arguing semantics and offering little in the way of analysis. Joe Carter was not a very good baseball player. Your condescension and insults do little to change this. I'm not trying to re-start a pissing match, but Carter wasn't terrible. He wasn't great, but he wasn't terrible. He had several good/very good seasons, including OPS+ of 130, 124, 119 and 113. Finished in the top 10 in MVP voting each of those years. No - he wasn't good at getting on base (which is a big problem), but he had a few years in which he was ok at it. And in those years, he had a really good SLG. By today's standards, no he's not very good. But a) that's far from terrible, and b) when measured against his peers, he was pretty good. Oh, and the next person that hires Carter to broadcast baseball games should be fired and then punched in the face.

you say that as if the Cubs have had hitters go elsewhere and blossom into great hitters since...oh, let's say anytime in the past 20-25 years. Joe Carter wasn't to shabby now was he, I believe he has a couple rings on his finger! I wasn't talking about just hitters I was talking about any player, pitcher, batter and ballgirl for that matter. Joe Carter was pretty terrible. Sarcasm?

very funny, Floyd should play but not every day,he can't physically handle it and by the way Murton had it figured out at AAA, both offensively and defensively. player B isn't Floyd Are you really campaigning for Pagan over Murton? no, just playing devil's advocate and maybe trying to explain why LOU would start one over the other. career numbers are good and all, but I think Lou is a "what have you done for me lately" guy, and clearly Pagan has made the better of his AB's this year than Murton has It certainly seems that Lou is a "what have you done for me lately" guy - though some guys get longer leashes than others. I have to believe Murton kicked Lou's dog or hit on his daughter* or something. *I don't know if Lou even has a dog, or a daughter for that matter.

Teixeria is a big improvement over the Braves current production from 1B, but they are 4.5 games back with 2 months to play. And it's not like the Mets don't have a pretty good lineup. If they were tied, probably give the nod to the Braves, but 4.5 games ain't nothing.

FTH does that mean? Means he's not mentally tough. Can't handle the pressure Lou puts on players to perform. I've heard this before from Levine. In other words, let's make up an excuse for not playing the guy. A really, really bad excuse as well. I dislike Lou very much. Yeah, he's terrible. The team has quit on him a long time ago.... Grammatical errors aside, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to suggest that Lou isn't always putting the best team on the field. Yes, I'm happy we're a half game out now rather than where we were in April, but that doesn't mean either (a) Lou gets all the credit for the turnaround, or (b) we wouldn't be just as good or better w/o Lou. Maybe both of those things are true, but not necessarily.