Exile on Waveland

That would be a very impressive offseason. And I'd be pleasantly suprised if it happened. As far as Milton Bradley being insane, the White Sox have dealt pretty well with Carl Everett, who's no model of mental health. I think Bradley just needs to be on a winning team in a supportive enviroment. My concern would be that Hendry wouldn't see the need for a big-time RF if he made the trade and landed Furcal. That would be my major concern after those deals. It would be an upgrade no doubt, but not an enormous one. Plus, I could see Jim being extremely satisfied with the team after those moves, then exercising Burnitz' ugly option (when does that have to happen?). I would not be happy with that OF. Listen, I'll be the first to admit that you're better with numbers than I am. However, I think it is an enormous upgrade. Bradley's OBP the last three years is 421-362-350. Patterson's three-year stretch is 329-320-254. Looking at that, I guess 350-329 isn't that big of difference, but that's Bradley's low-mark and Patterson's high-mark. Castillo's gone 381-373-391 compared to Walker's 333-352-355. Walker's numbers are good, but Castillo's are darn-near great. Castillo's also a gold glove caliber defender, and, while not really a good basestealer, I do believe his speed helps in certain situations. I'd also feel much, much more comfortable with Lowe in the rotation. He's a solid innings-eater. This rotation needs that. Plus, it would give us good depth or trade bait with Williams and Mitre. Disclaimer: This post in NO way endorses not doing anything in RF. We'd still need a good player, hopefully Giles, in RF. I just think this trade would offer a big, big improvement. Another bullpen arm would be nice, too. Also, I don't mean to say OBP is the only stat, but it's what this team is missing.

Those are things the Cubs need. They definitely need another quality starter. And, though some on the board may poo-poo it, a leadoff hitter would be nice -- though not necessary, especially since Walker could handle it. While OBP is the most important thing for a leadoff hitter, someone with OBP and speed (a lot to ask, I know) would help a lot, I think. However, the power OF bat needs to a high-OBP type. That's the team's biggest weakness. And that's what I'm afraid Hendry won't see or address this offseason. I'm expecting the power OF bat to be of Preston Wilson's ilk. That won't cut it.

Life sucks.

Why would the Dodgers consider moving Bradley? He's crazy.

Yeah, the Cubs finally found a good third baseman, who just happens to be one of the most productive in the game. So, what should they do? Trade him. Morans. Edit: Have I been posting here long enough to use "Morans" without looking like a "Moran" myself?

I think that was game 4, which we lost anyway. We actually won Game 4, and I think that was the Lofton catch game because didn't Ramirez hit the grand slam a short time later? Ramirez hit his Grand Slam in like the second inning of an earlier game I thought. I'm positive the Grand Slam was in Florida, and I think that Lofton's catch was back in Chicago. You guys are thinking of game 4 of the NLCS, not the NLDS. Lofton's trap catch was in Chicago against Atlanta, and it was in game 4. ARam's grand slam was in the 1st inning of Game 4 of the NLCS off of Willis. Correct. Aram's bomb gave us the lead we would need for a 3-1 series advantage against the Marlins. Then the playoffs were cancelled for the year.

Can you prove this to be right? Also, how do you know when he's rattled he doesn't change his mechanics a little bit to flatten out his pitches? To hit a gland slam of of him 3 other guys had to have gotten on, how did they get there? Well, in the case of Sunday, the pitcher before him let two runners reach and Kyle walked the third guy. How do I know he doesn't flatten out his pitches? How could he flatten out his pitches when just about everything he throws is flat? I think the people who are throwing out the accusations need to prove their side of the story. Well, I'm probably somewhere in the middle of this argument, but just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think that's the key. When he gets hit, he gets hit hard. It's not a blooper to shallow right that kills him. But I think that's the nature of being a straight 100mph thrower with location issues. When he's dominant, he's as dominant as anybody in baseball. But, because he doesn't have great movement or location (which is why he was moved from the rotation to bullpen), he can't fudge his way out of a jam. He has to blow guys away to be successful. And for the most part, he can do that. But when he misses, it's likely to be a walk or a HR, the two worst things a reliever can give up. Perception is the reason why people say he can't "clutch up", not reality. He can be great or terrible in a meaningless game or a huge game. I don't think it has anything to do with how he reacts, rather with the unstable nature of his pitching ability. Now, therein probably lies the answer. If you were going to make an argument for non-clutch, it'd be the homeruns he gives up or the walks he concedes, not some bloop hit that falls in. The nature of his pitching style, not his actual nature leads to those things.

No idea how much they'd be worth. The Redskins were bought by Dan Snyder for $800 million a few years back. While I'd have to think the Cubs are more valuable, maybe NFL franchises are just that much more valuable or maybe Snyder overpaid. But I'd have to think it'd be at least somewhere in that range.

I, for one, am not. I've said multiple times that he isn't great. He's put together some fantastic seasons, and he's capable of putting together a great career. But he's got drawbacks. He's not a rubber arm. He's not a great 2 inning reliever. He's a great option to have in the pen, but you have to use him carefully and smartly. You really have to monitor him and stick to the gameplan. No, you're not. Like you said, if used correctly, Farnsworth is very good. I agree completely. I don't agree with this completely. What in my post was an "unreasonable bitter diatribe?" I like Farnsworth, he's just not perfect. That is what I said -- if it came off a different way, I'm sorry, but that's what I meant. Also, I don't want to carry the torch for "clutch" arguments, nor do I want to pile on Farnsworth for the HR's he gave up against Houstion. Like I said, I'm kind of doubtful of clutch, though I certainly believe players aren't robots. However, 1) pressure situations in the regular season? C'mon, that's no where near the same thing and you know it. 2) I think most have agreed that when he gets in trouble, he really gets in trouble and 3) He pitched great for the Cubs in the playoffs, but not as closer. Why does that matter? I have NO idea. But it mattered to Hawkins. It may have mattered to Farnsworth. Is it rational? Probably not, but it seems something is there. PS Sorry, I'm not really sure how to quote from two sources correctly. Sorry, I wasn't talking about you when mentioning the "diatribes", more of the things said earlier. Again though, aside from those couple outings, which he has twice as many with amazing success in the playoffs, where is the evidence that he gets into trouble when it matters? It's cool. Farnsworth definitely seems to lead to "diatribes," I've just never meant or wanted to head down that path. I think it's basically the opposite of the argument against clutch. You can't expect a player to come through in every big situation, and the small number of chances lead to fluctuation and discrepancy in the numbers. I think it would also hold true that you can't expect a player to fail in every big situation, either. However, wouldn't that make "clutch" someone who comes through more than the average player, or "non-clutch" someone who fails more often? I don't know, but just because he hasn't failed in every situation doesn't mean he's reacted well. You know as well as I do that there's luck involved in baseball -- where the batted ball lands (glove or ground), who's up to bat, etc.

I, for one, am not. I've said multiple times that he isn't great. He's put together some fantastic seasons, and he's capable of putting together a great career. But he's got drawbacks. He's not a rubber arm. He's not a great 2 inning reliever. He's a great option to have in the pen, but you have to use him carefully and smartly. You really have to monitor him and stick to the gameplan. No, you're not. Like you said, if used correctly, Farnsworth is very good. I agree completely.

4 is more than 2. brilliant....still had the lead after the grand slam though. I love measuring the true nature of someones crappines. Lets bring Farnsworth, Alfonseca, and Fassero back. Then all will be well. I'd rather have Farnsworth than Novoa in the pen next season. I'd rather see Farnsworth out there than Wuertz, or JVB, or Leicester, or Wellemeyer. I'm not sure all would be well, but Farnsworth would've been the best righty in our pen last season, and barring a major FA acquisition, likely will be better than any righty in our pen next season. Oh, I agree. The Cubs never should have traded Farnsworth. They should have never overworked him, which led to his trade. He's no star, but he's a very good reliever. Wish the Cubs still had him. However, I would like to add that some do seem to be ignoring some of his downfalls. Players aren't robots, and I don't think Farnsworth always reacts well in a given situation. I'm not sure if clutch exists in baseball, but I do know it's human nature to react differently in different situations. There had to be some reason that Hawkins was an excellent set-up man but a terrible closer. I don't believe he just started to physically stink.

Yeah, I've never really has any problems with them. They show up, cheer loud and are knowledgable. I can't really be annoyed with that. I still hate the Cardinals, just not their fans. Go Angels! I agree here. I have no problem with Cards fans, they've always been hospitable. I didn't mean to bash all of them in my previous posts, I just hate the best fans garbage.

Hatred by some. Healthy respect for most. Same is true for me and the Astros. I agree, Cubs/Cards 'hatred' is mostly a myth. There are some bitter fans on both sides but mostly it is a healthy, friendly rivalry. I would rather have the Cards win than the Astros or the Sox because a) their fans aren't obnoxious and b) they're probably the best team remaining and they deserve to win. The Cardinal fans aren't obnoxious? You must have never been to St. Louis before. They are some of the most arrogant and obnoxious fans that I've met. Of course I say that respectfully. The one time I was in STL, it was the airport. A couple of stereotypical 30 somethings stood near me in the bar watching a game. They were the most condescending A's I've ever heard. You should actually try going to a game there. Man, it's brutal. They've totally taken the "best fans in baseball" thing to heart. Now, they do truly love their team and almost everyone shows up in Cardinal uniforms or shirts. So, yeah, they're good fans. But just blindly cheering for every player seems pretty close to what Cubs fans get grilled for. Besides the whole best fans thing is so totally unquantifiable. Funny story that by no means is supposed to describe all Cards fans: My friend and I were at Busch for a Cards-Cubs game sitting behind two guys and their two dates. They, of course, were doing the typical guy thing while at a sports-date. They were being complete know-it-alls, and also bashing Cubs fans for not knowing anything about baseball. Anyway, the scoreboard had a list of the NL leaders in slugging percentage. One of the dates asked what that meant, and after a few seconds of stumbling through, one guy says, "Uh, um, possible doubles?" I'm pretty sure they knew we were laughing at their expense. Possible doubles? Really?

I do. It's the Cubs.

If the Yankees offered Wood a 1 or 2 year extension to his contract, there may be a shot of him waiving his no trade. Have to agree w/ Tim, ARam and Wood for ARod. Maybe get another minor player from NY. No way I trade Ramirez and Wood for ARod. I'd love to have ARod in a Cub uniform -- that "clutch" talk is bogus -- but not at that price. Who'd play third? Who'd fill out the rotation? Would ARod, who has bulked up, move back to SS? I'm not sure that trade helps us too much. Is this Nomar (at 3rd?)/ARod/Mitre(or whoever) really better than Ramirez/(Nomar/Cedeno/Furcal)/Wood? Maybe it is, but I'll take my chances with Wood being healthy with Ramirez and whatever SS we get -- assuming it's not Neifi.

Then they are screwed. They have no choice. They must improve the OF. Yep. If they don't improve the OF then nothing else matters.

Either way, the "Why, are you looking for trouble" quote is hilarious.

I actually had that in my sig for a while. It just struck me as hilariously stupid at the time, especially considering that Burnitz played at Coors. It's stuff like this that really makes me worry about the Cubs reported new interest in "numbers". When other teams were hiring Ivy League statisticians or Billy Beane disciples to help bring them up to date on the new ways of objective analysis, the Cubs hired Chuck Wasserstrom, a former PR or media relations guy if I'm not mistaken, to handle their number crunching and data analysis. They didn't go outside the team to hire an expert in the field, they just gave a current employee a different job. I don't know his credentials, and I'm not going to accuse him of anything, but when Hendry starts citing completely arbitrary BS stats like that one to justify making a deal, I can't help but wonder what the Cubs stat department is doing. I don't pretend to be an expert in the field myself, but I read quite a bit from people who know a lot. And nothing the Cubs have done in 6 years (about the amount of time I've paid attention to so-called sabermetric thought), leads me to believe they take it seriously. It's frightening to me that an organization with such a strong history of failure would assume they know more about their field than anybody else, and that they are too good for a new way of thinking. But that appears to be the case. It would be one thing if Hendry mentioned "clutch stats" like batting average with runners in scoring position. Those numbers fluctuate, but at least they mean something. That would just make me nervous about the team's philosophy. However, Hendry mentions some weird "slugging percentage of people that strike out a lot" stat. That not only makes me nervous about the team's philosophy, but also the competence of its decision makers. I mean, seriously, what the heck does that stat even mean? It's ridiculously arbitrary. I struggle to believe someone actually said that, much less that someone was the GM of a major MLB franchise.

I wasn't basing my choice on history. If I was guessing who'd win the award, I'd go with Jones based on his old-school, media-friendly counting numbers. I would vote for Pujols. Lee was the better player this season, but his value was to the Cubs, while Pujols' value was to the Cardinals. I think there's a difference, but it's just my opinion.

Weaver and/or Boras have already stated that they expect at least a 5-year, 50-million dollar contract. While I doubt he gets that, he's looking to break the bank and there's a Jim Bowden born every minute. Also, while I'm too lazy to look up his splits, he's pitched in Dodger Stadium, not to mention the rest of the NL West. Wrigley's no longer the big-time hitter's park it once was, but it's no Dodger Stadium, either. I'd go Millwood. He's not spectacular, but a safe-bet would be nice for our rotationn.

What did Pujols do to help his team win that Lee did not? Lee was not only the better hitter, he was the much better defender. Again, Lee was better this year, but it's not most outstanding player. It probably should be, but, I'm sorry, it's not. If Lee was much better than Pujols, then, by all means, give it to him. Or if the Cubs were a good team that just didn't make the playoffs, then give it to him. It's happenstance, yes, but winning counts. I'm not giving "valuable" points for helping a team finish close to .500.

Thank you, Derrek Lee. Without you, the Cubs would have been completely unwatchable. Thanks again. What a great season. Here's to hoping he wins the MVP and somehow stays at this level for the next few seasons.

I agree. Jones doesn't deserve to be anywhere in the discussion, but Pujols' numbers are close enough to Lee's that the difference in team winning percentage would swing my vote. I do hate to say it, though. I'm also sure quite a few will disagree with me, but it's not the silver slugger award, it's the MVP.

I'm thinking Braves, Cards, Red Sox and Angels. Mine was simplistic, here's a better version: Red Sox in 4 Angels in 5 Braves in 5 Cards in 3 Angels in 7 Cards in 6 Cards in 6 I'm really torn on who I think will win the Angels-Red Sox and then the World series, though.