USSoccer

Your continued ignorance of evidence to the contrary doesn't help your argument. If he was bound to break down why didn't he break down from 2001 to 2003? For that matter, why didn't he have complications from the elbow surgery in 2000? He had 3 and a half seasons for his mechanics to break him again, and yet they didn't. Why? COuld it be because he wasnt' asked to shoulder an unreasonable workload? Furthermore, let's say you're correct and his mechanics made a breakdown inevitable. Why then risk throwing him 141 pitches in 7 innings in May against St Louis? Why throw him 122 pitches in 6 against San Diego in April? If his mechanics were so bad everyone knew he was due to break, why weren't measures taken to limit pitch counts, especially early in the season? Extending him on September and October is one thing. You do what you need to do to win in the heat of a pennant race and in the playoffs. Throwing a guy 141 pitches thru 7 in May is idiotic. No matter how you try and argue it, Baker is a major culprit in his injury plagued 2004-2006.

Wood problems were way before Baker You're wrong. In 1999 he had his TJ surgery, which was the culmination of a lifetime's worth of abuse. In 2000 he came back in May, and had your typical "back from elbow surgery" season. From 2001-2003 he made over 90 starts. His current woes began after a 2003 season that saw him throw 3545 pitches, which IIRC was the most of anyone in the league. 2003 also saw him throw the following #'s of pitches in games: 122 on April 12th, 141 pitches on May 10th, 121 on May 15th, 126 on June 29th, 129 on July 9th, 130 on July 19th, and 125 on August 27th. In total, he had 13 starts not including the postseason with more than 120 pitches. Wood's problems begin the season after Baker arrived. There's no way around it. People can talk about mechanics or conditioning all they want, but the way he was worked in 2003 was asking for him to break down.

Atlanta would probably pull him back. If they were looking to trade with Boston, they probably don't have any interest in a trade from the Cubs, and I'm not sure Hendry has any interest in matching the Red Sox offer. This would just annoy both the Boston GM and Atlanta GM, since the Cubs have nothing to gain by blocking and no realistic chance to trade with Atlanta. Hendry should look into it though, and if he gets a sense that Atlanta would let him go for nothing, or make a trade that helps the Cubs, go for it. Just about everyone is put on irrevocable waivers with the chance that if there is a deal to be made they would slip to that team. Waiver deals for big time players are extremely rare because they always get blocked by another contender and are pulled back off of waivers. Don't you mean revocable waivers? I don't think very many guys get placed on irrevocable waivers. And on that subject, when Boston did that to Manny Ramirez in 2004 we should have been all over it.

Based on watching the games. I see alot of games and Cedeno has made some boneheaded plays. Of course he's young and it's his first major league season as a full time shortstop and he's still learning. At this point right now Izturis is the better shortstop. Have you watched Izturis enough to be able to make the same anecdotal claim? Nope! But Izzy winning a gold glove, and everyone and their mother on all the Dodgers message boards praising his glove work, I can assume he can play a little bit of Shortstop. In fact I can't find anything or anyone that says he's not a bad shortstop. #1, the Gold Glove is a joke. You should know that. Bobby Abreu has one. Rafael Palmiero had one in a season where he played like 30 games at 1B. #2, he wasn't even the best SS on the Dodgers. Rafael Furcal is/was. By a wide margin: Now, defensive metrics are still very raw, but that's a huge gap. #3, there are people on message boards praising Neifi Perez's glove work. So you're going by 2 completely meaningless pieces of evidence to support your statement. Now, all that said, he's not a bad defensive SS. He's probably solid. But I've never seen him play, I won't assume he's great based on a Gold Glove award and based on his salary and his offensive production throughout his career: ...I would rather take my chances that Cedeno will continue to develop into a perfectly fine SS at a fraction of the cost.

Just for fun: Cesar Izturis Career SLG: .339 Carlos Zambrano Career SLG: .359

Based on watching the games. I see alot of games and Cedeno has made some boneheaded plays. Of course he's young and it's his first major league season as a full time shortstop and he's still learning. At this point right now Izturis is the better shortstop. Have you watched Izturis enough to be able to make the same anecdotal claim?

Point by point, bolded: -If you're basing your desire to have Izturis on the fact that you need a good glove at SS, why trade for Tejada? He wouldn't play 3B for Anaheim in a pennant race. He's not going to move to 2B for Cesar Izturis in Chicago. If Izturis moves to 2B, what does his glove at SS matter? -Cedeno will sometimes not make the routine play based on what? -The third bolded bit makes you sound like Joe Morgan. He's not fast, but you think he's a good baserunner? Based on what? -Knowing when to run is waaaaay low on the list of qualities you want in a ballplayer. -Again, why trade the cheap guy who would be willing to move to 2B (which you've already implied is the easier defensive position) in favor of the expensive guy who doesn't really hit better than the cheap guy, and only has an advantage as long as he plays SS, which, in your Tejada scenario, he wouldn't? If the Cubs wanted to trade for Tejada, the only scenario where aquiring Izturis makes sense is if the Cubs flip Izturis to Baltimore and move Cedeno to 2B. I can't see us having enough to land Tejada in any case, and I don't know why Baltimore would want Izturis. Keeping Izturing AND dealing for Tejada makes little sense financially and defensively.

Uhh.... given the current roster, Murton makes a much better option for the 2-hole. I don't see that changing next year -- Murton will still be a better choice than Neifi or Izturis in 2007 too. Murton dosent hit enough to stay in the lineup everyday. He is more of a 4th outfielder on the Cubs. If Murton doesn't hit enough to play everyday, what do Cedeno, Perez, Izturis and Mabry do? The only reason Mabry is starting is because Lee is hurt. Like I said before, Izturis is in the lineup for his glove, and should be used in the 8 hole. You can get by with Izturis in your lineup if you have a solid lineup. The only reason Cedeno plays everyday is because he was the only SS on the roster. Perez starts because he was a better option than Walker, according to Baker. You didn't answer the question. Mabry is worse offensively than Nevin. Perez is worse than Cedeno, but really all 3 of the middle IF are bad. Murton is better offensively than any of them by miles, and plays a position where defense matters very little. So please explain your logic. And yeah, if you had a good offense Izturis could hit 8th. So could Perez or Cedeno. Do we have a good offense? No, not even close. Will a good winter bring us a good offense? Unlikely. We will be fortunate to land one of Soriano or Lee, and even if we do land one of them, we still won't be a good offense. The best we could hope for is a redux of 2004, where we slug but can't get on base, and have a very inconsistent offense.

Uhh.... given the current roster, Murton makes a much better option for the 2-hole. I don't see that changing next year -- Murton will still be a better choice than Neifi or Izturis in 2007 too. Murton dosent hit enough to stay in the lineup everyday. He is more of a 4th outfielder on the Cubs. If Murton doesn't hit enough to play everyday, what do Cedeno, Perez, Izturis and Mabry do?

How many teams have the worst-hitting middle infield in baseball? Once again, we don't have the worst hitting middle infield in baseball-at least not this year. Check out the A's-Ellis and Crosby are worse. And again, those 2 guys make about as much as one of Perez or Izturis. That matters. Yes it does-and so if the people said we have the worst value hitting middle infield, then that would be correct. We don't have the worst hitting middle infield though. Here are the numbers: Crosby: .229/.297/.339 Ellis: .219/.289/.320 Cubs: Izturis: .260/.308/.366 Cedeno: .254/.279/.338 Ellis and Cedeno are pretty close-that's pretty much a wash, and Izturis is better than Crosby in every category. Izturis has 123 AB's. Ellis has 256 and Crosby has 345. Give Izturis' sample size a chance to catch up.

How many teams have the worst-hitting middle infield in baseball? Once again, we don't have the worst hitting middle infield in baseball-at least not this year. Check out the A's-Ellis and Crosby are worse. And again, those 2 guys make about as much as one of Perez or Izturis. That matters.

I think he's pointing out that it's pretty easy to buy a glove. Cedeno's just a rookie. He may not have the funds available to buy another glove. You're kidding me, right? You know what the MLB minimun salary is, right?

Why is this concept so hard for some to understand? I wonder if defense is valued so poorly simply because of the lack of any type of objective standard. Generally, you can't get a grasp on a player's or teams defensive abilities without actually watching the games. And even if you watch the games, people's opinions on what defines good defense varies. That's definetly part of it. If you can't quantify it's overall effect and make it predictive, you'd be stupid to try and build a team around it.

I don't get the link you're making between the 2 at all. What I'm saying is I'm sick of people that say "we can't rely on Wood or Prior at all" like they're not even part of the team and if they become the 4th or 5th starters...great. All while Prior and Wood account for roughly $18 million this year. How can you complain about our high payroll and lack of success when 20% of the payroll is always on the DL? You can be sure if I were the GM and I had $13 million wrapped up in one player I'd damn well be counting on him...how can you not be counting on these two when they acouunt for so much of your payroll? Our team's success is largely dependant on them. We can't look at these two as afterthoughts. They either have to produce like front-line starters or get rid of both of them. That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Most people would agree that having 2 pitchers like that hurt all the time is a major handicap, but what most also say is that in order to not rely on the pitching staff, you need a consistent offense. That's what people mean when they say that Hendry is stupid for putting all his eggs in the pitching staff. You have to have balance. I'll tie this all back into the Izturis subject, though: Having him on this team and planning on starting him and Cedeno in the middle IF means you have 2 positions where you will be below average offensively. That hurts your offense, which puts more pressure on the pitching staff that's always hurt.

I would have liked that going into the season, too.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter... :D

Izturis will make about $4.5m next season and $5.5m in 2008. So we actually did lose money to spend. About...$4.5m worth. That adds up. Rusch + Neifi + Izturis is about $10m in waste. If we just had Izturis, it would be one thing. Together, the three of them take up more than 10% of our payroll. That's ridiculous. Why are fans so concerned about payroll? I'm pretty sure you're not the one cutting the checks and the guys who are seemed comfortable with the move so what's the problem? It's not like we're the Marlins or the Rays and have fire sales every 3 years. Management has proven they'll pay for talent. I highly doubt these contracts will stop us from going after a Soriano or a Lee next year. It won't stop them from being interested, but the extra salary that's being wasted will definetly hurt them in the bidding war that's sure to ensure over the 3 best FA this winter, not to mention making sure Aramis stays. Keep in mind that this winter's FA class sucks. There will be a lot of interest in a small number of players. Every dollar available helps, because while Soriano and Lee will be wildly overpaid, it's one thing to overpay and get production, and another to overpay on less-than average players like Rusch, Perez, and now Izturis. EDIT: Let me say that if we did not have Perez, I'd be less ambivalent toward Izturis. Having both is just stupid from a roster and payroll perspective. Planning on a middle IF of Cedeno/Izturis is asking, begging to struggle offensively.

Izturis will make about $4.5m next season and $5.5m in 2008. So we actually did lose money to spend. About...$4.5m worth. That adds up. Rusch + Neifi + Izturis is about $10m in waste. If we just had Izturis, it would be one thing. Together, the three of them take up more than 10% of our payroll. That's ridiculous.

I think all the injuries added up to kill a once promising career.

Perhaps Cedeno is still working on his switch to 2nd base? Taking grounders or what ever. I'm trying here guys... Pretty inexcusable. That's easily the worst offensive middle IF in baseball. And also easily the best defensive MI in baseball!! Great, so instead of losing 15-4 we'll lose 9-4. Are you saying defense accounts for 6 runs a game? :wink: I'm thinking that Izturis will levitate and snag a ball that otherwise ends up bouncing down Kenmore at least twice, therby preventing two 3-run homeruns.

Perhaps Cedeno is still working on his switch to 2nd base? Taking grounders or what ever. I'm trying here guys... Pretty inexcusable. That's easily the worst offensive middle IF in baseball. Except the A's middle infield of Ellis and Crosby has been worse than Izturis and Cedeno, which means we're not the worst middle infield even for these two months. Except that it's Izturis and Perez I was talking about. OK, well Perez's OPS is 3 points higher than Cedeno's this year, so it's still better than the A's. How much do Crosby and Ellis make? Because both of them make about what one of Perez or Izturis make.

Perhaps Cedeno is still working on his switch to 2nd base? Taking grounders or what ever. I'm trying here guys... Pretty inexcusable. That's easily the worst offensive middle IF in baseball. And also easily the best defensive MI in baseball!! Great, so instead of losing 15-4 we'll lose 9-4.

Perhaps Cedeno is still working on his switch to 2nd base? Taking grounders or what ever. I'm trying here guys... Pretty inexcusable. That's easily the worst offensive middle IF in baseball. Except the A's middle infield of Ellis and Crosby has been worse than Izturis and Cedeno, which means we're not the worst middle infield even for these two months. Except that it's Izturis and Perez I was talking about.

At the risk of sounding like Brodie Bruce, if you're not going to pay attention to the conversation, don't join in. Don't worry. You sound NOTHING like Brodie Bruce. And I'd just like to know where this "good defense" is coming from. Ramirez has been pretty good at third. Cedeno is inconsistent. Where's this run-saving defense coming from? Isn't that what the discussion was about? The effect of good defense on pitching? All I wanna know is why you consider the Cubs defense to be good and, therefore, able to save the Cub pitchers tons of runs. I realize, the subject is debatable. But, I've watched MANY Cubs games this year and haven't walked away from any of them thinking that the Cubs had a bunch of defensive studs. You, obviously, see things differently. Given that defensive ability is almost completely subjective, why build a big part of your team around something you can't even quantify? Because if you want to win you have to. Ask any pitcher if they think Defense is important... Oh my god. Just to sum up: -You can't measure it. -It's not predictive -It's less important than pitching and offense... But you have to have it to win. Okay. The 2004 Red Sox did not win because they were good defensively. They had 3 absolute butchers, 3 guys who were below average and 2 guys who were good defenders. The 2005 White Sox won because they hit 200 HR's and they had at least 4 starters and 3 bullpen guys have career years AND played in a weak division. The 2003 Marlins won because they got on base and had really good pitching that got hot at the right time and got a couple breaks against the Cubs, and beat an absolutely worn down Yankees team. The 2002 Diamondbacks won a crap division because they had 2 of the best pitchers of a generation on their team, and no one could hit them. Should I go on? You're completely wrong. You cannot, CANNOT rely on something unpredictable when you're building a baseball team. That's like me playing the lottery as a career and hoping that the Lotto, and not my job, will pay my mortgage.

At the risk of sounding like Brodie Bruce, if you're not going to pay attention to the conversation, don't join in. Don't worry. You sound NOTHING like Brodie Bruce. And I'd just like to know where this "good defense" is coming from. Ramirez has been pretty good at third. Cedeno is inconsistent. Where's this run-saving defense coming from? Isn't that what the discussion was about? The effect of good defense on pitching? All I wanna know is why you consider the Cubs defense to be good and, therefore, able to save the Cub pitchers tons of runs. I realize, the subject is debatable. But, I've watched MANY Cubs games this year and haven't walked away from any of them thinking that the Cubs had a bunch of defensive studs. You, obviously, see things differently. I think the main argument is, is Defense important in baseball? It's nowhere near as important as pitching and offense, and it's not predictive enough to try and build a team around.