USSoccer

-The White Sox won that division last year in part because Thomas hit a bunch of HR's for them before he got hurt, which won them games that ended up helping them hold of Cleveland. They won the World Series because every pitcher on that staff had a career year and an amazing playoff run. Not because of clubhouse chemistry. Thomas travelled with that team. He was in the locker room, on the bench. Him not being on the playoff roster didn't make the White Sox champions. Just because he wasn't in uniform, did that make the White Sox instantly get along? Bonds doesn't have a ring because his Pirate teams choked in the early 1990's, and because Dusty Baker got badly outmanaged in every postseason appearance with the Giants, and even then they should have won in 2002. Thomas has a ring. From the White Sox. Last season. When he was on their team. He left for Oakland this past winter. If I were a GM, and the salaries or player costs were equal, and they played the same position, I will always take the MVP guy, because baseball is not a "team" game like the other major sports are. It's a game of individual matchups. I would be doing a disservice to the other 24 guys on the team if I didn't go with the best player. When I played soccer at the level I got to, I didn't get along with all of my team mates off the field. All I cared about was their performance and production in between the lines. That's it, and I'd wager 90% of big league ballplayers would tell the GM to pick the MVP, because most players would rather have the best chance to win, and not the happiest clubhouse in the league. That's a pretty insulting impression of what people who look at stats look for. That sort of overreaching, non-important stat is akin to the Jim Hendry quote for why he signed Jeromy Burnitz in 2006 ("he was 4 in the league in SLG% amongst guys who struck out 150+ times" or whatever it was). People use numbers because numbers don't care if a guy sprints out a routine out to 2B. They care that that same guy consistently puts up a .900 OPS, and therefore is a very, very productive player.

The Cubs minor league system has succeeded in developing tradable pitching talent. They have yet to develop a regular, solid positional player for the major league club. Part of the problem is an overreliance on toolsy players and an overaggressive coaching style that takes free swinging guys with talent and deemphasizes controlling the strike zone and being patience. Of the positional players in the system right now, there isn't a whole lot that jumps out at you and screams "big league star". Will we get a solid big leaguer out of that group? Maybe. I hope Pie is that guy, but until the focus moves away from raw "tools" and starts factoring in actual performance, we're going to have to hope that we get someone so talented, that they will succeed in spite of a flawed philosiphy. There doesn't seem to be any thought to minimizing risk with our drafts. It's always tools and athletes. So we get these raw guys who are really good athletes, and instead of preaching patience, we're preaching aggressiveness, which plays into most of their weaknesses. That falls on the coaches. If you have free swingers, why on earth are you encouraging aggressiveness? Finally, I know that injuries to pitchers happen, but they happen to our pitchers quite frequently, and I think the coaches at all levels (particularly the ML level) need to figure out how to properly handle a pitching staff. The failure to not overwork pitchers has contributed directly to the current state of the Cubs. As far as what I think it takes to win a championship, you need healthy, consistently good starting pitching, on base percentage + slugging and luck. Defense and intangibles (especially intangibles), in my opinion, are way in back of those first 2 things. You can't build a team like the Cubs have, around speed, defense and chemistry, and win. If I were to rank them percentage-wise, I'd put about 50% on pitching, 40% on on base + slugging, 5% luck and 5% defense. You can't have a team full of Manny Ramirez's out there, but you also can't afford to have 2 absolute offensive black holes in your lineup for defense's sake (as the Cubs do currently, with Izturis and Cedeno). Likewise, if you're going to have those 2 in the middle IF, you need to make sure you get good offensive production from your OF. Murton in LF is a good player, but Pierre and Jones can't be your CF and RF next season, particularly if Cedeno and Izturis are in your IF. You cannot afford to be so bad at getting on base from 4 of your 8 position players and expect to play consistent, winning baseball.

Talking down to me and refusing to actually address relavent points isn't going to prove me wrong. You are the person who stated that Jones hustles and does the litle things well. I've provided evidence that that is not the case. You then respond by asking if Jones spikes every throw, gets picked off every time he's on 2nd. Of course he doesn't. I didn't say it was all he did. What you offered was hyberbole, and dealing in absolutes is a dangerous thing. What I am saying is he's done it more than enough to show he's terrible at the precious little things that the Cubs organization hold dear. Hold everyone up to the same standard. Don't damn Ramirez and praise Jones, despite proof that Jones is worse fundamentally and provides poorer production across the board. As far as Ramirez and his hustle, I never said he was a scrappy hustler. He's obviously not. What I am saying is just because he doesn't go 100% full bore throttle on every groundout doesn't make him an ineffective player, or someone without a championship mentality. He's a very, very good player, and one that is a huge key if this team wants to even sniff contention over the next 3 years. The Cubs coaching staff can question Aramis and call him a loafer all they want. They've proven themselves to be completely clueless and incompetent as far as what they value in a player, and if they value hustle and heart more than talent and ability, as well as improvement (defensively), then that just cements my already poor opinion of the coaches in this organization. It's funny how you question his clubhouse demeanor, yet none of the beat reporters have ever reported Aramis having caused issues in the clubhouse. Finally, let me offer you this: You have Jones and Ramirez. Let's say they are equal as far as fundamental skills go-all the little things, like baserunning, defense, hustle, etc. If they're equal, why would you favor the guy who's a .270 hitter, who is poor defensively, isn't that fast, can't hit for power, can't get on base and is 31 over the guy who's 27, is a .300 hitter, hits for power, gets on base, and plays good defense? Just because you think the .270 hitter cares more? If your answer is Jones, and the Cubs' answer is Jones, then that's a pretty good reason we're 98 years removed from our title. They consistently value the wrong traits in players.

For all of the misguided romanticism about intangibles, you failed to address the main point of my post, which was that Jacque Jones has cost the Chicago Cubs runs, and games, by virtue of his terrible defense and baserunning lapses. If Jones is so intangibly gifted, why can't he keep from spiking every throw from RF? Why can't he hit the cutoff man? Why does he continue to stray off 2B and get picked off? Those are all "little things", intangible details of the game of baseball that, according to you, make up a winning team. However, observable evidence shows that Jones is terrible at the little things. Why give him the "He Trys Hard" pass and not Aramis? Why not instead look at the steady improvement of Aramis' defense at 3B as evidence he does care about becoming a more complete ballplayer? You're ignoring evidence that contradicts your logic and relying on player reputation. I will submit to you that Ramirez is not only a superior player, but has worked harder to improve on areas of weakness as a Cub than Jones has, indicating he really does care about his performance more than people give him credit for. Also, you bring up attitude in the clubhouse. Have you spent a ton of time in the Chicago Cubs' clubhouse? Have you spent enough time in there to know that Aramis is some sort of clubhouse cancer and doesn't have a "championship mentality"? I seem to recall his lack of interest in the team and non-championship mentality putting up a .956 OPS, hitting 4 HR's, driving in 10, and playing solid defense for a team that was unlucky to not win a pennant in 2003. It seems that Ramirez's non-Jeterness really didn't hinder the team. You're making conclusions about a player using criterion that you ignore when it comes to the reputation of another player. That, in a nutshell, is why newer methods of player evaluation will always be more reliable than a players reputation and old-school scouting myths. Reputations are always subjective. They are hard to shake. Sometimes they are undeserved. Saying that Ramirez's supposed lack of hustle indicates he doesn't care, isn't a championship type player, and might be a clubhouse cancer while at the same time ignoring tangible evidence that a supposed "intangibly gifted" player is abysmal at the little things makes no sense. Furthermore, baseball is a game of individual matchups within a loose team concept. It does not take a great clubhouse to win championships. It's not basketball or soccer, where the team concept is a must. It takes great players, consistent pitching, and luck. It doesn't take 25 guys getting along great. I'll take a roster full of talented guys like Ramirez that might jog an occasional grounder to short out over a roster of plucky scrappers who aren't very talented but try hard any day.

DaMarcus Beasley joined Manchester City on a 1 season loan from PSV Einhoven. This means 2 things: Beasley will get a chance to regain his confidence in a new enviroment, and Lee Nguyen may get more PT for Einhoven. Either way, the USMNT benefits. Also, American-born striker Giuseppe Rossi was transferred from Man U to Newcastle United. Rossi has played for the Italian U-21 side, and would be oh-so-perfect for the USMNT, but has consistently said his desire is to play for the Italians in international play. Which is a shame, since he is probably a better talent that Adu, Nguyen, or any of the other up and coming USMNT players.

You should care. Ramirez is every bit as important as Lee, and only slightly less important than Z. Losing him immediately dooms us to being terrible again with virtually no hope of competing for at least 2 seasons. I realize this. I just don't think it justifies setting the team even farther back by trading Lee or Zambrano. The point is that if you lose ARam, you aren't fixing the team in time to be seriously competitive for the rest of Lee's window. To add to that, Z could fetch a king's ransom in a trade. If you lose Aramis, you're targeting 2009 to contend, so why not completely retool and reload?

You should care. Ramirez is every bit as important as Lee, and only slightly less important than Z. Losing him immediately dooms us to being terrible again with virtually no hope of competing for at least 2 seasons.

Just a name I'd think Hendry would like. Veteran, versitale, etc.

I've preferred Von and would love for him to be the Cubs' next hitting instructor. But Zisk is pretty good. Despite the Dark-Age idea that middle-of-the-order hitters need to be aggressive at all costs?

If Aramis leaves, you might as well trade Z, Barrett, Prior and Lee. Our offense is already really bad. Take Ramirez away, and replace him with Mevlin Mora or Bell, and it's downright terrible. Ramirez must be signed.

Is LA still paying Darren Dreifort? Maybe Hendry will take his salary back...

I'm suprised no one picked up on this: So because Jones works hard (not on his OF defense, apparently) and doesn't "loaf" (despite his being picked off 2nd base how many times this season?) you like him more than Aramis? You got on posters here for not watching games, but that comment seems to indicate you are evaluating on reputation and not observation. I'll take the guy who hits 30 HR's, 100 RBI's, has a good on-base, improves defensively and occasionally dogs a groundout to short over a guy who barely will hit .275 this season with a terrible OBP, who is terrible defensively, doesn't have great power and has frequent lapses on the bases that "works hard". You can't build a team around guys who "work hard" and hit with RISP. AVG w/ RISP isn't predictive enough to build a roster around. It seems to me that there is such a resistance to thinking critically about what makes a winning baseball team. Clutchiness, hard work, speed, defense, etc... Maybe it's a generational thing, and as time goes on, we'll see more of a willingness to gt out of the dark ages of player evaluation and being approaching roster assembly with more of a modern, intelligent perspective.

I can buy the idea that with Lee out, it contributed mightily to Ramirez's tepid start. Having both of them in the lineup would have definetly helped. I can buy 10 wins. Not that that makes us a good team or anything...

Wow-I just went and looked up the Cubs statistics from that year, and that led me to the MVP voting that year-not only did Sosa win the MVP, but 2 other Cubs were among the 24 who got at least 1 MVP point. Anyone know without looking who those two other Cubs were? Just a guess but Kerry Wood and Mark Grace Those are two good guesses, but surprisingly neither of those is right. Beck and Tapani? Beck is correct-Tapani is incorrect. Henry Rodriguez is the other one, then. You would think so-but that is incorrect also. Beck is the first one, still waiting on the second one. Mulholland?

Wow-I just went and looked up the Cubs statistics from that year, and that led me to the MVP voting that year-not only did Sosa win the MVP, but 2 other Cubs were among the 24 who got at least 1 MVP point. Anyone know without looking who those two other Cubs were? Just a guess but Kerry Wood and Mark Grace Those are two good guesses, but surprisingly neither of those is right. Beck and Tapani? Beck is correct-Tapani is incorrect. Henry Rodriguez is the other one, then.

Wow-I just went and looked up the Cubs statistics from that year, and that led me to the MVP voting that year-not only did Sosa win the MVP, but 2 other Cubs were among the 24 who got at least 1 MVP point. Anyone know without looking who those two other Cubs were? Henry Rodriguez and Tapani?

Good early indicator of what Z is going to command...

I'd package Marshall, Mateo and Harvey and see what I could get. I'd keep Hill and Guzman on the 25 man. One can be the 5th starter and the other the long man. I like what I've seen from both of them, especially of late. Marmol goes to AAA to work on his command. Murton is my starting LF and #2 hitter. Cedeno and Theriot can battle it out for the utility IF spot. Neither impress me much. Pagan can be a nice 5th OF. Assuming we have a competent manager that keeps his players in the proper role. O'Malley and Walrond can go away.

The buildup to the PK was pretty good. The guy who scored (Robinson?) did the Clint Dempsey dance after his goal.

Given that this was the 1st preseason game with the offense mostly intact, I'd say Grossman did pretty well. INT's happen, but his completion percentage was good enough, and if you factor in the drops, he had a decent day.

He does have a point-we lack SLG%. He just said it in the stupidest way possible-by understating the importance of OBP.

No, but I don't believe Manny Ramirez is worth $20M per year and I don't believe Carlos Beltran is worth $17M per year. You either overpay for top talent, or you settle for second-tier players. The Cubs are apparently content doing the latter. Manny Ramirez is a top 5 offensive player. Barry Zito isn't a top 5 pitcher. I'd struggle to put him in the top 20. It's one thing to overpay a guy who's clearly in the top tier at his position. Zito isn't close to being a top pitcher. OK. I'm just saying that your rationale - that he isn't worth that money - has been used for just about every major free agent the last 2-3 years, including Beltran, who is one of the best CF in baseball. Hey, I know what you mean. I know Hendry likes to cheap out on impact FA and overpay mediocrity. I think what I'm saying is that if Hendry were to pay Zito $15m a year, it would be overpaying for mediocre production. I think the FA class this winter-especially the pitchers- is so weak that I won't blame Hendry for not chasing the "name" pitchers (Zito & Schmidt). It's going to be different than the Beltran thing. I think you can get similar production to Zito's for much less if you target the right guys. I think it's hardly fair to call Zito mediocre. He's very good, just not great. He's good. Very good is a stretch. You'd struggle to put him in the top 20 for SP's.

-I think Aramis opts out and Hendry resigns him for 4/$60m with another opt out after 2 years. -I think he offers Pierre the 3/$24, he rejects it, and then is offererd arb and declines. -I think we sign Trachsel to 3/$18 and Soriano to 4/$60m -Zito signs with Boston, Schmidt with Seattle, Lee with Texas. -I think Baker is offered a 2 year extension, but with the caveat that the coaching staff is replaced. Baker will refuse, and Hendry will fire the entire coaching staff except for Speier and the bullpen coach who's name I can't remember. Hendry will then hire Lou Piniella. -Pie is given the starting CF job out of ST, and Cliff Floyd is signed for 2/$16m with an option for a 3rd year.

No, but I don't believe Manny Ramirez is worth $20M per year and I don't believe Carlos Beltran is worth $17M per year. You either overpay for top talent, or you settle for second-tier players. The Cubs are apparently content doing the latter. Manny Ramirez is a top 5 offensive player. Barry Zito isn't a top 5 pitcher. I'd struggle to put him in the top 20. It's one thing to overpay a guy who's clearly in the top tier at his position. Zito isn't close to being a top pitcher. OK. I'm just saying that your rationale - that he isn't worth that money - has been used for just about every major free agent the last 2-3 years, including Beltran, who is one of the best CF in baseball. Hey, I know what you mean. I know Hendry likes to cheap out on impact FA and overpay mediocrity. I think what I'm saying is that if Hendry were to pay Zito $15m a year, it would be overpaying for mediocre production. I think the FA class this winter-especially the pitchers- is so weak that I won't blame Hendry for not chasing the "name" pitchers (Zito & Schmidt). It's going to be different than the Beltran thing. I think you can get similar production to Zito's for much less if you target the right guys.

No, but I don't believe Manny Ramirez is worth $20M per year and I don't believe Carlos Beltran is worth $17M per year. You either overpay for top talent, or you settle for second-tier players. The Cubs are apparently content doing the latter. Manny Ramirez is a top 5 offensive player. Barry Zito isn't a top 5 pitcher. I'd struggle to put him in the top 20. It's one thing to overpay a guy who's clearly in the top tier at his position. Zito isn't close to being a top pitcher.