KingCubsFan

Yeah, that West Tennessee lineup wasn't particularly good. I don't want Sandberg to be the manager, but I doubt it would be the worst thing in the world as some have made it out to be. Manager is easily the most worthless head coaching position in professional sports, so as long as he doesn't (a) abuse the starters and (b) overmanage because of his ego (like Ozzie Guillen), the team results will be largely determined by the talent on the field. People tend to draw on his minor league track record, but it's hard to equate managing in the minors with managing in the majors. The minors is much more development-oriented, and certain things are likely dictated by upper management. On what credentials would you base your decision on his capability to manage a major league team? IMO, Sandberg has exhibited quality b in spades in the minors, and also exhibited a quality you didn't mention, © running into/giving up outs. The major thing that he has going for him are his team's W-L record, which you attribute to talent. I'm not sure what worse thing in the world means, but even if he's not, he has nothing going for him except he was/is a baseball hero in Chicago. I would prefer he still be a hero. I still love the player that Sandberg was. Has he really exhibited a large ego and tendency to overmanage, or are people simply disillusioned by a Yahoo article and his Hall of Fame speech? I could be wrong, but I thought someone posted his team's stats, and his teams were generally in the middle of the pack in sacrifice bunts. Could be wrong though. In terms of credentials, I think it will vary by GM. Ultimately, the manager should reflect the GM's philosophy and be willing to manage in a way that will bring out his player's strengths, because players will always be more important than managers. One of Hendry's biggest flaws was that he did the opposite: He tried to build a team based on his manager's desires. If Theo Epstein or Andrew Friedman interviewed Sandberg and discussed philosophies, and in the end decided he could implement the organization's philosophies, then I'd be fine with him as manager, although I think any manager should coach in the majors first. If Ned Colletti thought he was the right man for the job, I'd be concerned (although we'd already be doomed). And I think you're selling Sandberg a bit short. He's now managed for several organizations, and has been mentioned as a possible candidate for both the Red Sox and White Sox this offseason, as well as a possible successor to Charlie Manuel in Philadelphia.

Yeah, that West Tennessee lineup wasn't particularly good. I don't want Sandberg to be the manager, but I doubt it would be the worst thing in the world as some have made it out to be. Manager is easily the most worthless head coaching position in professional sports, so as long as he doesn't (a) abuse the starters and (b) overmanage because of his ego (like Ozzie Guillen), the team results will be largely determined by the talent on the field. People tend to draw on his minor league track record, but it's hard to equate managing in the minors with managing in the majors. The minors is much more development-oriented, and certain things are likely dictated by upper management.

I'm a big encarnacion fanboy. For some reason, I've always thought his defense was thought to be really good, but no idea where I think I heard that. I actually might have heard the opposite and have just been lying to myself to protect my delusions. I think when he was younger he was thought to have good tools, but now he's known as more of a defensive liability (still only 28). Offensively, I think he'd be a good project for Jaramillo.

Edwin Encarncion should be available too

I'm sure Miguel Cabrera would have run that out.

Wrong thread

Interesting that it doesn't take multiple angles, cameras, witnesses and a Moises Alou temper tantrum to see that Alex Gonzalez botched an easy double play, and that's what primarily caused the collapse.

White Sox White Sox Diamondbacks Most of the guys you mentioned were from a very long time ago. Despite having pretty high rankings, the A's have been unable to develop a lot of impact talent. Can't blame them for guys like Harden, but overall their farm system has been a disappointment under Beane for the past 10 years or so.

The Crawford thing is the main negative on his resume to me. I'm still not sure WTF he was thinking there. I don't think anyone could predict Crawford's collapse this year. He was a good player, and while the contract was too long, the Red Sox can afford to do it. John Lackey, in my opinion, was a much worse decision.

nobody is disagreeing with that, what people are disagreeing with is how much of a disadvantage is fair to a team that loses their division by a game. the 2004 red sox won 98 games, had the third-best record in baseball and went on to win the world series, but under this system even though they were 6 games better than either of the other division winners, they'd have been forced to use schilling in a one-game playoff against the a's, probably having like a 60% chance of even advancing to face the angels. seems like it punishes the #1 wild card team way too much for playing in a division with a really good team. If you've got an idea that's 100% fair with no downsides or trade-offs, we're all ears. This new system would have more pro's than con's. It'd be a net improvement, despite being imperfect (as all postseason setups will inherently be). Maybe they should just have the two worst teams play in the one game playoff, wild card or not.

He probably hasn't picked up a baseball since he got suspended.

He's been far greater than his numbers indicate. He's had some seriously bad luck (.331 BABIP, 2nd highest in the majors), but he's got a 3.53 FIP and 3.55 xFIP and a 3.4 WAR (according to FranGraphs) and if you care to put stock into their "Dollars" metric, he's been worth $15.5 million this year, but it sounds like the Marlins are souring on him because of his traditional numbers being so pedestrian. Seems like this has been his issue for the last 3 years: 2009: 5.06 ERA // .317 BABIP // 3.35 FIP // 3.23 xFIP // 4.3 WAR // $19.2m Dollars 2010: 4.51 ERA // .316 BABIP // 3.86 FIP // 3.37 xFIP // 2.5 WAR // $9.9m Dollars 2011: 4.67 ERA // .331 BABIP // 3.53 FIP // 3.55 xFIP // 3.4 WAR // $15.5m Dollars Sounds like he's the victim of some terrible defense, might be a good person to try and swindle if they're seriously tired of his performance. Maybe attempt some sort of package surrounding Zambrano? He's currently signed through 2013 and stands to make $9M next season and $11.5M in 2013 At what point do you look at the BABIP numbers and say and wonder if it's not really bad luck, but merely getting hit hard because his stuff is in decline? He's had injuries, and the strikout rate really plummeted this year.

80% of his at bats have come from hitting either 6th or 7th, and they're fairly evenly distributed (although he's hit 7th more). It's similar for Aramis hitting 3rd or 4th, yet he's never complained about it. This isn't a case of Soriano being shuffled between leadoff and the middle of the order (like a few years ago) or in and out of the lineup. Basically, he comes to the park every day, and he's in the lineup either hitting 6th or 7th, which isn't a big deal. I've never heard of a player saying their mentality is entirely different hitting 6th vs. 7th, as they do when talking about hitting leadoff vs. middle of the order. And even if this does affect affect him mentally, it likely has more to do with the fact that he's no longer a focal point of the offense, as he has been his entire career.

Seems a little tough on Yao Lin Wang. Given the league, I have to think a lot of players struggle with consistency from game to game. Anyone who can hit 95 with a good breaking ball and rack up strikeouts like he did should have a higher ceiling than a back of the rotation starter.

I think you're reaching a bit here. Back when Lou was considering moving him from leadoff, he was pretty clear about he would hit anywhere in the lineup, but he didn't want to be juggled around. And the language barrier was still a factor. It was quite different than this: He's obviously more upset with the fact that he's batting lower in the order than the fact that he's moving around from 6th to 7th. As someone mentioned above, this looks like an athlete on the decline who hasn't accepted it. Doesn't make Soriano a bad person, and I'm sure he works just as hard no matter where he hits, but he's going to have to accept he's on the downside of his career at some point. And comparing this to Castro is a bit of a stretch too. Castro is a young player who clearly presses when he's hitting third, considering how damn good he is hitting #1 and #2. Soriano is equally bad no matter where he hits (which is basically #6 or #7 anyways, and is probably based mostly on matchups).

That's exactly why I think we can manage with lesser offense at third if it means a huge improvement in the rotation. A Flaherty/Baker platoon isn't going to give us the .867 OPS Aramis did this year, but they should be able to stay well above the .701 OPS which is the midpoint line in team OPS at third. Couple that with Aramis' age, health, and steadily declining defense and as much as I like him, it simply doesn't seem prudent to bring him back at the cost of CJ Wilson. This year was an aberration for third basemen due to so many injuries to good players. I don't think it's the new norm. I don't know how you can be so certain that a borderline top 10 guy in a mediocre farm system can step in and be a capable starter right away. Flaherty isn't even as highly regarded as Brent Morel, and look how that turned out for the White Sox (yes, I saw the fangraphs article the other day so I know he's improved the past few weeks).

And none of them are as young or healthy as Jeff Baker. Yes, but there's a solid chance they'd be better, and for a 1 year deal, I'd be willing to take the chance. Mark DeRosa hasn't been better than Jeff Baker since the first half of 2009.

I think he gets another year. I can't see a new GM coming in and immediately moving the franchise player to a new position without having watched him for a full season and seeing whether he improves.

Well here, we're celebrating. Which is unfortunate, he's been good to great at scouting throughout his professional career. It's not his fault that Hendry did not combine his talents with someone well-versed in statistics to view it from an analysis basis as well. Hendry only looked at it from one side ledger. His body of work is far more relevant than one Baseball America interview. Had he been credited for any players brought in by the Cubs? All I remember when he got brought in is people pointing to Marquis Grissom and Moises Alou.

Rays record last year: 96-66, 1st place in ALE. The Rays made 12 picks in the top 100 of the 2011 draft, mostly due to allowing 7 free agents to walk, including Crawford. They are again in playoff contention in 2011. Which is commendable and why he's right where he should be right now. Not arguing that Friedman is not currently succeeding. OTOH, This job isn't going to be about who can pile up comp picks. Not having money will catch up to the Rays and Friedman one day...like say when it's time to pay Price/Longoria. I'd like to see that phase for Friedman, because I dont buy a career that's almost totally sunshine and lollipops. It should take a whole lot more than two playoff appearances to get treated with the kind of reverence young Mr. Friedman gets treated with. The guys still a baby in the GM game...all the way to the point that they still have an old boss (Hunsicker) to help him out. It caught up to them this year when they lost their second best player, first baseman, shortstop, closer, top 3 starter, and two of their top setup men. And yet here they are, in contention. They could lose Price tomorrow and replace him with Matt Moore and the assets they receive in a Price trade/compensation picks. Given their budget, they'll certainly have down years, but Friedman has already shown the ability to plan ahead and prepare for those periods.

A link to his official MLB bio doesn't do much. I'm well aware of who Gerry Hunsicker is, but that doesn't mean Friedman is letting him call the shots. I don't think he's mentioned once in Jonah Keri's book about the Rays, and he appears to focus more on international development. If he wants to replace Oneri Fleita, fine by me. Again, I don't have a problem with Beane, and it would be great to get him, but Friedman is clearly the better candidate. Beane, while known as being innovative, has been unable to replicate his success since teams started valuing OBP. He turned his focus to defense, and his teams have been bad. Friedman also looked to defense, and his team went to the World Series. Sure, Beane did it first, but Friedman did it better. Saying that Beane would be the "boss" if he were in the same front office as Friedman really doesn't matter, because (a) it would never happen and (b) that speaks more to reputation than actual ability, which baseball is notorious for. More concerning, however, are the reports that Beane's focus has been away from baseball for a few years, and David Forst does most of the heavy lifting. Do you really prefer a guy who isn't 100% committed to building a championship team?

Sure, it's valid, but Friedman has shown that teams can still have a success on a limited budget even when big money rivals have adapted their techniques, which Beane hasn't been able to do. I don't know where you got this from. Link? And David Forst has had a similar role with Beane. He didn't win it, but they got there. The A's never made it. Kind of like Zito, Hudson, Mulder and Giambi? Of course Friedman didn't do it by himself, but it's interesting you're trying to take away the fact that he traded one guy (Young) for a much better player (Garza). Yes, all of these players were great talents, but what about the fact that he also signed Longoria to a ridiculous contract to lock him in, and, as I mentioned above, traded Young before he lost all his value? You make it seem like it's automatic when you have a top 10 pick, despite the fact you appear to root for a team that has draft Luis Montanez, Ryan Harvey and Josh Vitters in the top 5. Competing with the Mariners and Angels isn't quite competing with the Red Sox and Yankees. You seem to hold on to the fact that because Beane was the first GM to use some of these techniques, he must be the best. Which isn't true. What Friedman has done is, to me, much more impressive than Beane, and he has done it more recently.

The point is that the heard of the curve is loaded with money, and that sabermetrics works best when combined with money. Most of the guys people put on Beane's level (Friedman instantly comes to mind) don't have half his experience or the name or some other quality anyway. Like I said, there's not anyone specific I can name off the top of my head who has earned a job like the Cubs' job more. Friedman's arguably been more successful given his division and budget. Beane has certainly had his moments, but he's never been able to replicate the success he had with Zito, Mulder and Hudson, and he's been in a much worse division. Beane would be a great choice, but he shouldn't get in the way of Ricketts throwing all the money it takes at Friedman first.

Yeah he becomes a .315 hitter with 20+ homers and either average defense at short or plus defense at third base, he's a great player regardless of the walks.

Z would bring a more legitimatized arm in front of Scherzer and Fister, who are pretty talented. Fister is a Randy Wells type RH getting by more on command and control, and IMO is best as a 4th starter. I think he'd do really well in that ballpark too... Scherzer is 10x better than Zambrano at this stage of their careers. Plus they have Oliver up soon. I have to think the Tigers can get more than Zambrano for Porcello, even if we're paying Zambrano's contract.