USSoccer

Haha, if you think this is bad, wait until the Cubs lose 5 games in a row. Or when Neifi starts 3 games in a row, and no one is hurt...

-Being bigoted is a lot worse than what's happening here. Keep some perspective. -Even if the break even point is 66% (and I've never seen that anywhere), Pierre's 77% last season isn't that much better. Also, pointing out Pierre is more of a slap/bunt hitter that may be hurt by Wrigley's grass is a pretty reasonable concern, as is Pierre's dependence on BABIP. He never walks, so he needs to hit for a high average to be useful. I'm getting the feeling that this is about to take on the usefulness of debating Kery Wood's value with CubbieRich. :P

If you can go fact for fact, do it. Present one single statistical retort to any of the common discussions we have. Back up your argument with facts, and I'll listen. That goes a lot further here than just disagreeing, calling the board consensus "groupthink" and "boot-licking" and not backing it up with anything but rhetoric about how we "support the same tired smack all the time". There's only one side of the discussion here not backing up their assertions...

You're kidding me. In another thread you made the same comment about people hanging onto OBP only. I refuted it with specific examples from discussions we've had on this board to the contrary, and you're once again glossing over it. Until you start to actually read what people say, and stop reading into it, then you're never going to get it.

well, you do have sample size on your side. seriously, all you guys that like to make snide, smart ass remarks about moneyball, beane and OBP are just making yourself look stupid. NOBODY includes that stuff in their posts more than you. either you're imagining everybody mentioning beane, moneyball and james in their posts or you're just reading your own posts, which are littered with references to those things. enough playing the 'woe is me, i'm the poor guy in the minority on every issue that everyone hates...i'm such a martyr' card. no one's buying it. lol. glad you didn't get personal, and hendry's done several things wrong... ah, the final piece of your typical posting plan. 1. determine what the majority opinion on an issue is. 2. take the opposite of that opinion in snide, quick, baseless, inflammatory remarks. usually add a rolling eyes smiley. 3. wait for someone to call you out on your post that you have to know is ridiculous and has no support. 4. claim that your post is just being attacked because your a rogue, independent minded, outside the box, free thinker who doesn't fall into everybody else's follow the leader mentality. 5. wait for someone to call you out on that. 6. whine about being personally attacked (even though you technically personally attacked everyone who you claim to be part of the group think) and usually throw it out there that the mods are allowing the personal attack because the poster 'attacking' you is part of the in crowd. 7. shrug it all off because, well, that's just what you do. someday we'll see the err of our ways and realize you were right. so is the life of a martyr. This is the kind of post that really turns me off of this board. Tim should change the name from NSBB to the "Billy Board". I'll admit, Beane is onto something, but it is far from a perfected philosophy. Statheads like to spit out a stat and call it gospel, all the while, there are numorous variables that play into that stat that are considered "unimportant". :roll: :roll: :roll: Where do you see any reference to Beane in abuck's post?

umm, you're forgetting bonds is playing this year? He should win a gold glove. Oh yeah. Make that 3rd, behind Bonds and Pujols.

Holy.... :pukel: To be fair, it's an apples to oranges comparison, mostly. The fact that we gavea 2 yr 2.5m contract to a bench player in general is insane, but Thomas and Perez have nothing in common.

1.000/1.000 161 HR's, 334 RBI, 0 Sac Flies. He'll finish 2nd in the MVP voting to Albert Pujols because Pujols "Is the more complete player".

As is apparently every othe Cubs prospect unless the deal involves one of the top 5 players in baseball, and even then people around shake their heads. Trying to talk value on this board usually is very difficult. Williams is a very good trading chip for Chicago right now, perhaps the best they have to maximize value. Well, in my personal opinion Williams has more value in our rotation right now than as a trade chip. We're going to need his arm in our rotation, and I feel better about him starting than Hill or Rusch. I'd sooner trade Hill than Williams. That said, I'd not hesitate to use Williams to get a really good SS or OF. However, that player would have to be a legit impact player, and not one who has potential but has never put it together with any sort of consistency. Given that our window of opportunity is right now, I'd rather trade potential type guys like Hill, Marmol, Pie, Dopirak, Harvey, and even Guzman before I moved guys like Cedeno, Murton and Williams, simply because those 3 can produce for you right now, when your window is still open, and at a low cost.

I though after the Miller signing we were at 40 on the 40 man roster. What happened? And more importantly, what on earth has this guy done to warrant being on a 40 man roster for a $100m payroll team?

Yeah, actually it does. Stocked has no reference to quality, just quantity. The Cubs have more than 5 starters going into the season, and will have Wood and Miller joining as the season goes on. They have more than one kid who could plug-in a spot start if someone else goes down in April or May. That very easily qualifies as stocked, regardless of whether you think the quality is just mediocre across the board (which it isn't - it's killer at 1-2 and average from 3-5, which incidently makes it better as a whole than 80% of the league). Maddux is the number 3, even with decline. With similar ERAs, but with a vastly superior strike-out to walk ratio and lower WHIP, Maddux is still better than Williams. Even if they are "stocked" (I disagree with your definition), I wouldn't want to trade someone of Williams' talent for someone of Kearns' talent, period. It's not selling high at all. Williams is 24 years old. Maddux is 39. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree that Maddux > Williams. Looking at 2005 alone, they were pretty equal. Williams only got better as the season progressed and is much more likely to continue to do so. Maddux has declined in the last few years and is much more likely to continue to do so. Frankly, (I'm going to be in the minority here) I'd rather trade Hill or Brownlie before I traded Williams. Maybe even Guzman (I doubt it). No, I agree with you. Williams is a guy you hold onto.

Would you trade Williams for Corey Patterson? Because there is not a lot of difference in their talent potential, and actual success in the major leagues. Williams is being criminally undervalued lately. He's worth more than Kearns, who had his one good year thanks to an insanely high BABIP. He's not worth a #3 starter.

Heck. No. It's only a contract year if he opts out. Maybe he won't. And even if he does, he's entering his prime. No reason to trade him or not resign him. He's better than Lee is.

True, but at the cost we paid for Jones, and the likely cost to aquire Kearns, is it worth it? You could have signed Eric Byrnes for a $1m deal if you wanted to platoon Jones. I think Kearns has more upside than Byrnes. Kearns has had some struggles in the majors, but he has also had stretches where he has been very good. He's still young enough to realize that as he hasn't entered his prime years just yet. If the cost was Wellemeyer and Williams, I'd probably do the deal for Kearns. Williams is worth more than Kearns on his own. Kearns should have approx the same value as Patterson...maybe a little higher. He's not had success outside his one BABIP driven good year. Why overpay for that?

True, but at the cost we paid for Jones, and the likely cost to aquire Kearns, is it worth it? You could have signed Eric Byrnes for a $1m deal if you wanted to platoon Jones.

When the teams are close in terms of talent, Pistons. Knicks are up there, too. Bouncing the Knicks out of the playoffs was a Chicago Spring tradition not too long ago. Cavs too, for that matter. :D The Bulls vs Pacers games towards the end of Jordan's Bulls career were the most entertaining basketball games I have ever seen. The Eastern Conference finals in 1998 were the best 7 games of that whole run. Kukoc was a big reason they advanced, those teams were so evenly matched.

I think at this point for the Cubs, we could use a lefty specialist more than a 4th OF. Rusch isn't a great LOOGY candidate, and I have no faith in anyone else in the system. That said, if you knew Hill could fill that role well, or knew you were going to platoon Jones, Ohman for Michaels is fair.

You have a lot of faith in Murton, do you? :wink: Well, I meant like when both their careers are long over with, but it looks a little funny the way I wrote it. But you never know. Maybe Murton will pull a Franco and play til he's 50.

The thing you don't seem to see is that people use multiple metrics-not just OBP-to prove points about players and philosiphies. Look at the Juan Pierre issue. People point out his SB% affects his OBP negatively, and his OBP is closely linked to his BABIP, which is why people say he's overvalued-he doesn't walk much, so he needs a high BABIP to be an effective weapon. OBP comes up in that argument, but in the context of other stats as well. Now, Neifi. Neifi also never walks, and never has a high enough BA to justify regular playing time. He has no SLG%, no OBP, a mediocre BA, isn't fast, and hits into a lot of DP's. Again, OBP is used along with other metrics to reach a conclusion that he's not suited for regular playing time. Point out to us one argument where someone hung their hat solely on a players on-base.

Not from me, I'm right there with you. I'd rather keep Williams and Murton than Pie and Hill, for many reasons. You're more likely to get an impact player for Pie/Hill, Murton/Williams are more suited to contributing right now, which is our window while Z, Prior, Aramis and Lee are relatively young and under contract. Plus, I think in 25 years Murton will be the better OF, and I think Williams is criminally undervalued.

And some people always resort to hyperbole and absolutes to make their point. Oh, wait... Im gonna agree with Cubsdad4ever there's a large group on this board that likes to believe that they know more about players trade vaule then the peolpe that work in the game today and tend to have some very negative attitudes towards some of the most respected minds in the game today (Hendry and Hughes). A lot of peolpe on this board love to mention Sisco as a mistake on Hendry part but some to fail to give him credit on knowing when it was time to cut ties with some of the boards favorites Cruz ,Choi, Dubois ,Jones, Harris, Hill who have all gone on to have such sucesss elsewhere. Actually, I'd argue that Hendry held on to Cruz way too long. He was a top 10 prospect in baseball at one point, and we got nothing for him in the end. Can't argue about Hill, Jones or Choi.

4th OF.

Its one of Hendry's stronger qualities.

Something tells me that putting an oft injured starter with Baker doesn't exactly equal success. Having said that, Hendry made the right move. Miller @ $1m is a good signing, and if he is truly healthy, gives us depth, meaning Guzman and Hill don't have to be counted on as heavily. It also, as someone else mentioned, gives us flexibility via the trade market.

I wonder if Tampa would be more interested in Williams than the guys the Cubs sent to Florida? I think they would. Are you thinking Lugo? I would rather keep Williams as a part of a bigger deal, or for ourselves if he's as good as I think he is going to be. I don't think the difference between Lugo and Cedeno is really worth much, plus after next season we're going to have 3 open rotation spots to fill. Williams would look nice in there given his age, salary and potential.