K-Town

So would I. Is your memory infalable or something? All I can tell you I know of what I speak. I have to have the Yankees and Mets crammed down my throat on a daily basis. This is not something that is made up. But anyway, I've already shown two articles talking about his defensive woes. I think I've proved my point. And one more time. I said I've read and heard baseball people talk about Wright as a future 1st baseman (long term). That doesn't mean he won't be an adequate defensive thrid baseman in the near future. All and all, I'd take him right now over Aramis or Rolen. I have yet to see an article that doesn't imply that Wright's going to be very good defensively. Baseball America said he will be. The article that you posted (the only one that I could read, anyway) compares him to a young Scott Rolen, and says any thoughts of him moving to first base were "quickly dismissed". You're wrong.

I haven't found ANYTHING (and neither have you) that says his future is as a first-baseman. The very article that you reference says that any thoughts of doing that "died quickly". It's not happening. I'm not wrong. Wright was a good defensive third-baseman as a minor leaguer, and every report that I read (including yours) says that he'll be a very good defensive third-baseman as a major leaguer. In other words, he's not going to first base.

No he doesn't have a point. He has nothing. EDIT 1: I just did a google search and it took me less than a minute to pull up this article. Now you have to buy it if you want to read it David Wright gets defensive -- Newsday.com The job of improving his defense is so arduous, and David Wright takes it so seriously, that sometimes the work brings the Mets' young third baseman to his ... http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... ,0,3018274. story?coll=ny-sports-headlines&track=rss - 66k - http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmets0324,0,3018274.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines&track=rss Edit 2 (two minutes from the last edit) Here is another one from the Mets webpage http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060312&content_id=1346509&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym Sure doesn't look like you looked too hard there. I am done with this nonsense. It really isn't worth my time. I'm not going to register to read the Newsday article, but here's what your referenced Mets page says: Early last summer, while Wright's error total was steadily increasing, there was a thought, one that had a brief shelf life, that the third baseman of the present and future might be transformed into the first baseman of the future. The thought died quickly, even before Wright made adjustments during the All-Star break and became a more reliable thrower and an improved overall defender. He slowed himself and less rushing meant fewer errors. Wright committed 15 errors in 233 chances (a .936 fielding percentage) before the All-Star break. After the break, he made nine in 228 chances (.961). It goes on to compare him to a young Scott Rolen. Pretty much a ringing endorsement for his defensive abilities, if you ask me........ and no sign of him moving to first base.

You have got to be kidding me. What am I taking at face value? The fact that you are being argumentative over something that is rather insignificant? The fact that I was trying to get the thread back on topic? I'm not getting worked up, I'm just wishing you would shut up. The topic was "Scott Rolen or Aramis Ramirez". Someone pointed out that they'd rather have David Wright (not off-topic, in my opinion..... just a slight diversion). I don't get to see EVERY player perform on a regular basis (Wright is one of them), so I depend heavily on what I read, and what the numbers tell me. That's why I was interested in where the information came from. I really like what I've seen of the kid, and hadn't heard this particular information.

Who are you, Matlock? You have an opinion, he has an opinion, this is going absolutely nowhere. Drop it already. Who are you, the "David Wright police"? He doesn't have an "opinion". He said that he knows of source (published and broadcast) who have questioned David Wright's defensive abilities, and have suggested that he'll move to first base at some point. I simply want to know who's making that claim, so that I can consider the validity of it. What difference does it make to you? The difference it makes is that you're being unnecessarily argumentative (again). He heard on the radio in NY that some have Wright pegged for 1B in the future. What 2 craps should any of us give about your concern for the validity of those sources? I'm sure if there were questions on the sources, he probably wouldn't have put much stock in what they had to say and certainly wouldn't share THAT OPINION (yes, he does have one). My good God, if it's that important to your life, spend some time at Google searching for stories. You're bound to find some. I did do a Google search. Didn't find a thing, and chances are that YOU won't, either. Stop getting so worked up. I have reasons for wanting to know where the information comes from. I'm not sure why it would be such a "secret". Do you act this way every time someone asks for confirmation or verification of something? Or are you the one guy on the planet who takes EVERYTHING at face value?

Who are you, Matlock? You have an opinion, he has an opinion, this is going absolutely nowhere. Drop it already. Who are you, the "David Wright police"? He doesn't have an "opinion". He said that he knows of source (published and broadcast) who have questioned David Wright's defensive abilities, and have suggested that he'll move to first base at some point. I simply want to know who's making that claim, so that I can consider the validity of it. What difference does it make to you?

As has already been pointed out: And that's for a 23-year old kid who is still getting better. He's gone 46 innings this year without a single error. His fielding percentage has been slightly below average over his 235 games, but his range has been above average. You also initially implied that he'd only be at third base for 5 years......... and now you're saying "about age 30". You've also said that you've heard scouts and read reports that say his future is at first base. I simply want to know which reports you've read, and which scouts said that, so that I can determine how much credence to give it. That doesn't seem like a huge request. 1. Average is not good. It is average 2. He will be 24 shortly unless I forgot how to add in five years he will be around 30 3. I've already said where I read the reports and where I've heard them from. I am not going to spend an hour looking stuff up to make you happy. 4. No amount of going round and round on this topic will sway your opinon. And it seems neither will the data so keep your opinion and wait five years to have this conversation again. Summary: It's simply your opinion, and there are NO otehr sources that have questioned his defensive ability, and there are NO other sources who have suggested that his future is at first base. Is that pretty accurate?

As has already been pointed out: And that's for a 23-year old kid who is still getting better. He's gone 46 innings this year without a single error. His fielding percentage has been slightly below average over his 235 games, but his range has been above average. You also initially implied that he'd only be at third base for 5 years......... and now you're saying "about age 30". You've also said that you've heard scouts and read reports that say his future is at first base. I simply want to know which reports you've read, and which scouts said that, so that I can determine how much credence to give it. That doesn't seem like a huge request.

Good point. Last spring there was a series of articles in the NY Times about Wright quoting annymous scouts about his potential. In addition, on WFAN, Mike Francessa and Chris Russo discussed Wright all the time. Let me state this again so no one misunderstands my point here: Wright is a special baseball player. He has a shot at a very long and very good career, but he is nowhere near an elite defensive thirdbaseman. He probaly will be better than average in the near future, but not great. You said (or implied) that the plan was to move him to first base, because he couldn't hack it at 3rd. I simply want to know where that notion comes from. He's good defensively.

You've followed his career closely but didn't know he wasn't a rookie last year? Look, Wright is going to be very good offensively. That does not automatically make him very good defensively. Semantics. Last year was his first "full" year...... thus my reference to "rookie mistakes". Where did you read that he'll be moved to first base? And where did you read the negative defensive scouting reports? I'm not trying to be a jerk....... I'm just interested.

He may have made some rookie mistakes last year, but I've never seen anything but excellent reports about David Wright's defense. Here's what Baseball America said about him, as a minor leaguer: He makes all the plays at third base. He's one of the best in the minors at charging bunts and choppers, and he also shows a major league arm with good accuracy. And I've heard scouts on the radio and read in print that his ultimate future is at first base. I am going by what I've seen living outside NYC and heard here. After about the first month of the season rookie "jitters" likely wear off. Regardless, Wright wasn't a rookie last year. In 2004 he played 68 games at 3rd and made 11 errors. I cannot find Wright's minor league numbers, but thus far his error rate has been fairly consistent his 1.5 years in the bigs. Please note. I said he would be my pick for the best overall 3rd baseman so let's not try and paint a picture that I am saying he is terrible. He is not terrible. In five years he will be nearing 30 and a move to 1st base is not all that unusual. I'd be interested in hearing who says that he'll ultimately end up at first base. I've followed his career pretty closely, and haven't heard so much as a whisper about that. My understanding is that his defense is very good for a 23-year old.

Considering he's only 23, I'd say that's pretty sporty.

He may have made some rookie mistakes last year, but I've never seen anything but excellent reports about David Wright's defense. Here's what Baseball America said about him, as a minor leaguer: He makes all the plays at third base. He's one of the best in the minors at charging bunts and choppers, and he also shows a major league arm with good accuracy.

Rolen has been better than Ramirez this year (small sample - granted), and career-wise. If you want to pick & choose years (last year, when Rolen was injured) then you can make a case for A-ram, but it would be a reach, at this point.

How is that clear? Rolen's Career: .284/.376/.515 Ramirez Career: .277/.329/.481 For this year and next I'd take Rolen after that Ramirez. Going by 3yr averages, they appaer very similar. Rolen: 289/384/533/917 Ramirez: 296/350/532/882 The key difference is that Rolen provides an extra 30 points in OBP. Given current age and other factors, I'll take Ramirez. "Other Factors" = "I'm a Cubs fan". :lol:

Hard to make a judgment until the league sees him once or twice, but I thought he looked OK for a youngster.

John Kruk is wrong. Right now, it's probably David Wright.

It's not done yet.

Cards sandbagged all weekend in an effort to hurry along the Dusty Baker contract extension. :lol: Oh, and the Cards bullpen is REALLY bad!

You know what they say about assumptions.... "They" aren't always right. Have you ever smiled before? All the time.........why? This entire thread is partially tounge-in-cheek. Do you really think after all the back and forth you and Vance have had that he is seriously making the titled distinction right now? I have no clue what you're talking about.

You know what they say about assumptions.... "They" aren't always right. Have you ever smiled before? All the time.........why?

You know what they say about assumptions.... "They" aren't always right.

He knows exactly what he's doing. :lol:

Lee is 6'5", and Pujols is 6'3". I assume that's what you mean.

What? I'm not umpire techniques expert, but I can't see how you are even close to right here. You never see baseball umps look around for help before they make a call. They make what they thing is the right call. Then if another ump thinks differently they talk about it. There is no hesitation, and no way would it be just a split second delay if they glance over their shoulder for help. They make the call, then deal with the problems if somebody disagrees. I'm not saying that's what happens, it's what should happen. Any umpire who is unsure of a call should not be making a call. And you do see umps look for help in making calls a few times in most games, the old "did he go" on a check swing. Balls and strikes are an entirely different circumstance than a ball that's in play. Umpires don't have time to hold a conference while players are running bases. The play was handled exactly right, in my opinion. The Pirates might not like it, but the outcome was the way it should have been, and you can't ask for more than that.