Exile on Waveland

ESPN still thinks the Cubs gave up Marshall. Then Ravech said Bonds "shouldn't be playing the way he's hitting." Wow.

ARAM RULES!!!! (I thought that was gone)

Mizzou, I don't care about Blevins. He was possibly a useful piece, but I'm not going to lose sleep over him getting traded. I am upset that we added someone who's old, overpaid, and bad. He's certainly overpaid. But I think that'll be a moot point for the Cubs after factoring in the portion Pittsburgh is paying, the pro-rated portion that has already been paid and whatever Oakland (HOPEFULLY) will pick up.

NONONONONONONONO. He's so, so bad. Kendall is really bad. Offensively and defensively. Instead of upgrading at SS or RF, we somehow managed to downgrade our C position. Oh, my first reaction was "Please no." It's on the board. Kendall sucks this year, obviously. 46 OPS+, 260 obp, 280 slg, etc. That's awful, I know. But I have more hope for him than Bowen/Hill (I don't have faith that Soto was going to get a real chance this year). I am NOT on board with the deal because of including Blevins, but I think Bowen for Kendall is a low-risk (albeit low-reward) move.

I would have definitely traded Bowen for Kendall. Kendall at least gives you the hope of decent production -- he's been good in his career and decent as recently as last year. Hell, he can't be any worse than what they got catching so far. And, according Cot's, this is the last year of his deal. However, including Blevins makes me dislike the deal. I honestly know nothing of Blevins, but his numbers look good and I'll defer to the minor league experts on the board that he has potential.

Ha ha, that's hilarious. 46...

Please no.

I feel bad for him. I do too... he really didn't get a chance (only 35 PAs as a Cub), got in a really bad slump, and then the Cubs shipped out the wrong guy. Agree with everything. Not that either player is great, but I believe Bowen is preferable to Hill.

Exactly. Ha ha, unicorns, ha ha. I guess I should've expected the cavalcade of condescension. I certainly did not make such an argument, but, oh well. Anyway, again, I think it's very, very likely the catcher position is going to end up costing the Cubs if it doesn't improve. A team with other serious holes (SS, CF) can't withstand such inept hitting from catcher (or any position, for that matter). I also don't think Barrett's absence is the reason for the Cubs superior play -- it's likely just a hot streak from a team that hadn't yet played up to it's expected rate. However, I don't want to completely dismiss some other intangible affect either. Is it Likely? No. Possible? I'd say maybe. That's all I was saying. Somehow, though, trying to keep an open mind about some immeasurables renders me a unicorn believer.

In the future, please read posts for what they say, not what you believe the poster is thinking. I have NOT asserted that the Cubs are winning because they traded Barrett. There is no empirical data to support this, but I don't see how there could be either. The Cubs have played better without Barrett, it's likely coincidence but we'll never know. While I don't yet put much stock in it, if it continues I'd be loathe to completely dismiss it. Finally, just because I have no evidence doesn't make it untrue. Plenty of things have existed long before they could be explained. It does, however, mean that I won't argue the point (which would be futile).

While I completely agree the Cubs are winning in spite of their awful catching situation, I'm not ready to agree with the later. Is it coincidence that the Cubs have been much better without Barrett? Maybe, maybe not. Also, Barrett is hitting 264/264/321 with the Padres. While that's certainly better than what Bowen/Hill have given the club, the Cubs would still need an upgrade from those putrid numbers. What possible argument can you make that the reason the Cubs are doing better is because of getting rid of Barrett and replacing him with even worse production? I'd love to hear why the hell you think that. I have yet to see a single, solitary reason that isn't complete BS. I can't make one. There isn't one, there is no way to know such a thing. I never said the Cubs are winning because Barrett is gone; I simply said they've played much better without him. It's likely coincidence, but perhaps it's not. However, I will say this: if the Cubs continue to play better without Barrett, I'll consider trading him the correct move even without any statistical support.

While I completely agree the Cubs are winning in spite of their awful catching situation, I'm not ready to agree with the later. Is it coincidence that the Cubs have been much better without Barrett? Maybe, maybe not. Also, Barrett is hitting 264/264/321 with the Padres. While that's certainly better than what Bowen/Hill have given the club, the Cubs would still need an upgrade from those putrid numbers.

The pitching was fine while Barrett was here. See Fred's stats on ERA w/ different catchers this year. I have no idea how this response is relevant to my post. I didn't mention Barrett, and I'm quite aware of Fred's stats. I thought my parenthetical would quell such condescending responses, but I guess not. The post had nothing to do with Barrett or CERA -- and the post explicitly stated the later. It had everything to do with the logical fallacy of assuming one intangible affects a tangible, while another quite similar intangible doesn't. It's pretty simple: if a pitching coach can affect pitching, then so can a catcher. Maybe neither do, as I'm not sure any persuasive empirical data exists. But you can't have it both ways. I'll agree that there is no way to accurately measure the difference between one PC and another. I never said I gave any credit to Larry for the staff this year. My second response was aimed more at DDS' post than yours. I'll give Rothschild credit. He's the pitching coach and the pitching has improved. Did he have anything to do with it? I really don't know; but what he's in charge of has been successful. That may be an oversimplification, but I'll believe that pitching coaches have at least some minimal affect on pitching. Why? I know that if I was running a team, I sure wouldn't eliminate the position. Regardless, Rothschild was hamstrung by former management. Maybe it's irrelevant and pitching coaches don't matter, but it's obvious Rothschild was often overruled by Dusty and his minions.

I think this is the most likely result. Marquis has generally been pretty good his first year with a team then declined from there. The next two years could be very bad.

Please look at the above, all who think that Barrett's departure madde a big difference for the pitchers. Who exactly are you arguing with? Are you lost? I don't believe Barrett was mentioned at all in this thread. And, if he was, those stats are really circumstantial anyway.

The pitching was fine while Barrett was here. See Fred's stats on ERA w/ different catchers this year. I have no idea how this response is relevant to my post. I didn't mention Barrett, and I'm quite aware of Fred's stats. I thought my parenthetical would quell such condescending responses, but I guess not. The post had nothing to do with Barrett or CERA -- and the post explicitly stated the later. It had everything to do with the logical fallacy of assuming one intangible affects a tangible, while another quite similar intangible doesn't. It's pretty simple: if a pitching coach can affect pitching, then so can a catcher. Maybe neither do, as I'm not sure any persuasive empirical data exists. But you can't have it both ways.

DING,DING, DING,... We have a winner! ...seriously? I mean...really? I think a pitching coach has a significantly greater impact on a pitching staff than any catcher would. Yeah, catchers can have some impact, but the pitching coach is there to, you know, coach. He's there to analyze his pitchers and make sure he gets the best possible production out of them while protecting them from injury. This includes going over hours of game tape with guys, making mechanical adjustments, overseeing various exercises, keeping pitch counts, and a ton of other things which come with coaching. It's his job to do those things. A catcher, on the other hand, has nowhere near the same impact. Yeah, a catcher can educate himself to do those things, but his basic job with a pitcher is to call a game and receive the ball without incident. On occasion, he might need to do stuff like switch up the signs or go out to the mound to calm his guy down. That's pretty much it. The difference between the two is rather stark, if you ask me. The impact of a pitching coach on a given pitching performance is a heck of a lot greater than a catcher. Both are imputing a tangible value from an intangible. I have no idea how much difference a catcher or pitching coach makes on a pitcher. They're both basically immeasurable, and I doubt we ever know the impact of either. I don't think it's a stretch, however, to believe that the player actually on the field participating with the pitcher could have a similar affect as a coach in the dugout.

I think it's odd that people congratulate a pitching coach for pitching performance, but dismiss off-hand a catcher's impact on pitching. (And, no, this isn't a CERA argument, which is obviously a crap stat.) That said, I do think Rothschild was hamstrung by the incompetence of previous management.

So am I.

Cristiano Ronaldo (Manchester United) and Kaka (AC Milan) are 1-2. There's a big gap after them. After that, you could order 3-5 like this: Thierry Henry (Barcelona) Ronaldinho (Barcelona) Leo Messi (Barcelona) All three on the same team. There are big gaps in talent between a player like Ronaldinho and a player like Steven Gerrard, who might be top 10, but nowhere near the top 5. You've got great goal scorers like Didier Drogba and Wayne Rooney, who probably aren't in the top 10. Ditto Robinho. You have defenders like Fabio Cannavaro and goalkeepers like Gianluigi Buffon, who are great at their position but couldn't be considered top 20. If you're only talking about field players, there isn't an American in the top 100, and I'd strain to put one in the top 200. Tim Howard is probably a top 50 keeper. Wow, I had e-mailed a friend in London asking the same question. He gave me the exact 5 that you did, in no particular order. Yeah, really those 5 are pretty much head and shoulders above anyone else. It's the list I would've given. Also, I don't have FSC, Goltv or ESPNU. I watched the first US game in the Gold Cup, but haven't seen any Copa America or U-20 World Cup games. :cry:

No doubt that's a popular solution among Cavs fans; those are the two most overpay players on the Cavs roster, especially Hughes. Good luck finding a GM willing to take on either of those contracts without some added talent thrown in by Cleveland to sweeten the deal. For sure, I doubt people are banging down Ferry's door for either of them. Personally I don't think there's a chance in the world that Hughes gets dealt, but I could see some scenario where Gooden gets sent somewhere. There's a rumored Gooden for Bibby deal.

"Rickey thinks Rickey is ready to be the head Rickey of the NY Ricky's. Rickey is the greatest of all-Rickey. Rickey. Thank Rickey." EDIT: I'm guessing when Rickey speaks in the third-person, he spells his name correctly. :oops:

Aside from his considerable talent, that's what I think seperates Ronaldo from Messi, Kaka and the other great players. Ronaldo imposes his will on nearly every game he's in. He's so aggressive, and so confident that he's willing to take his game to an opponent. In the game where Man U dismantled Roma, he was the best player on the field by a wide, wide margin. His runs, and Roma's fear of his runs, let directly to about 5 goals. This is what I was trying to get at, you did so more successfully. I believe Messi is getting there, and will eventually. However, I just don't see the same with Kaka -- this is opinion, of course.

I agree, I'd be willing to include Murton for Griffey, Jr. I also would then play Pie everyday. With the added offense, it'd be much easier to absorb his subpar production. Also, if they dealt for Dunn, Pie would be a necessity in CF to cover for Dunn's horrid defense.

I believe that Messi will eventually pass Ronaldo to be the best player in the world. Both are outstanding, of course. Ronaldo does have a tendency to go one on 18 (as was said) too often, and look for his shot too much (especially from distance). As for Kaka, he was a disappointment in the World Cup and was invisible for huge portions of the Champions League Final (though he did have an assist and was likely the best player overall in the tournament). For that reason, I don't put him in the same category; he doesn't impose his will on the game as well as others. I don't like Ronaldo (big surprise there), but you never forget he's in a game.