goonys evil twin

You do? Examples? I'm curious... Well, I can't do a search. I just noticed your avater really stands out, and the last time I recognized it was from a time when you took a similar shot at people on this board, and I thought the same thing. The "only here" thing was both inaccurate (the starter vs closer debate is widespread) and unnecessary. Why couldn't you just say you completely disagree, and state your reasons why. It's not as absurd an idea as you might think, although in this case, I agree with you that Lidge is worth more than Williams.

I don't think you get it. The blowup occured after somebody gave a smartass reply belittling another poster's opinion. He wasn't expressing opinion, he was acting very rudely. And some people just so happen to choose the exact opposite opinion of the majority, on every issue. Now, "the majority" doesn't always agree on everything, far from it. Despite a perception that some "longtime posters" just sit around agreeing with each other and knocking out the dissenting voice, that's just not true. I would have to be described as a longterm poster, or at least among the most frequent. And I've argued with just about everybody here. I've gone from complete agreement on certain topics to complete disagreement on other topics with people like Tim, 1908, BBB, Cuse, JC, Sulley and many others. There isn't a trend of one group siding with each other and ignoring others, despite what some wannabe martyrs want to believe. Furthermore, if your opinion is that it made perfect sense to send Wood out when the team stunk and you knew he was injured and needed surgery, you deserve to have people come back at you strong with the opposing view. Anybody can feel free to express a dissenting opinion. But I don't think they have any right to cry "unfair" if and when the majority comes back to rebut.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/W/jerome-williams.shtml

That is a distortion of the truth. While I would say it is unwise to think of him as a lock for 180 innings, he has done it. In 2003, at age 21 by the way, he threw 189 between AAA (57) and the major leagues (131). This year, between AAA, Chicago and SF he was at 177, and did not miss the 180 mark because of health. It's been more of a readiness issue with him. He just turned 24.

Here being nsbb.com? Perhaps I've just clicked on the wrong threads, but you seem to often include a shot at the board in general when you make your points, and I see little reason for that. 1908... Yes, here being NSBB. Don't misunderstand... I like this forum, and I believe that this site has the most insightful baseball fans that I have ever encountered on the internet. I appreciate the stats and useful information that one can find here. And, despite compaints to the contrary, I have found that there is a fair amount of dissenting opinion. However, it has been my observation that posters here tend to WAY overvalue Cubs players and prospects. Perhaps you consider that hyperbole on my part. That's okay. Maybe I consider it hyperbole on your part that you say I "often" include shots at this forum. Have I done that before? Yep. Often? Nope. Sorry if I offended anyone. That wasn't really my intention. I notice it all the time. It's not just NSBB.com. The value of a closer is much debated. The straight up innings comparison would tend to favor the pitcher. Lots of studies have made it seem like a Williams Lidge comparison is not so absurd as one may thing. Starters are more valuable than relievers. Closers are overrated. I believe these things. But I still believe Lidge is more valuable than Williams. And I believe it's completely unnecessary of you to continually insult the posters here with those types of comments.

We did hear about it before, it was just unclear exactly when he would have that option, or if it was a one time thing or not. I would have thought he had to make that choice already, but I haven't heard a thing.

I'd much rather have Lidge than Williams. I'd rather have a great starter than a great closer. I'd rather have a good starter than a great closer, and an average starter over an average closer. Starters are more valuable than closers. And it's not absurd to talk about Williams value in reference to Lidge. But I'd trade Williams for Lidge in a heartbeat, and Philly should take Lidge over Williams in a heartbeat. Lidge is not a dime a dozen closer. He's not Alfonseca, Looper or Kolb. He's no flash in the pan. I think relievers in general have short shelf lifes, which is why I am not enamored with the acquisitions of Howry or Eyre. But lock down dominant closers tend to have a longer shelf life, and do have great value. That being said, if the offer was Lidge, or Williams, Pie, Wuertz/Novoa, and Guzman, I'd take the Cubs offer if I was Philly. A closer is great, but it's not as great as 3 arms and a hot CF prospect.

The pitching isn't the problem. Good pitching can take a team a long way. Do you see Williams as a solid #3 next year? On a team with great hitting Williams could be a solid #3. But on a team with average or below average hitting, like the Cubs, you need 4 guys better than Williams.

You meant Pie, right? oops, yes, Pie. I've done that 5 or 6 times and usually catch myself.

he's not exactly out of his prime, either. come on, he'll be just 32 at the start of the season. that's pretty prime in my book. 32 is past prime, clearly. But Abreu in his prime was amazing. And 32-33 isn't really old. Abreu past his prime is still quite possibly the best hitter on the Cubs, he'd easily be the best OF option, and the only possible adaquate middle of the order option on the team (barring a Tejada deal).

Goodness gracious? You act as if it's the most bizarre concept to trade a good prospect for a good major leaguer. Pierre had great AA numbers, in half a season, then got injured and couldn't come back despite constant updates that he was due back "in a few days". Those numbers were also out of line with the rest of his pro career. Ideally I wouldn't trade Pie in an Abreu move, just like I'd like to hold onto Cedeno in a Tejada deal. But Hendry put the Cubs in this position. They don't have anything to hold onto, the need to win is now, not in 3-4 years when, if all goes well, Pie will be a good OF. You want to worry about the 2009 season, then get ready to worry about Zambrano, Prior, Ramirez, Lee and a whole new bunch of bullpen questions. 1990-2001 was the time to worry about holding onto all the prospects and waiting for the right moment to go for the gold. Now is the time to try and win. The Cubs thought they could draft and develop a bunch of great pitchers, field a core group of hitters from the minors, and then trade the pitching surplus for the difference making bats they needed when the time came. Well, that plan is gone. They haven't developed any position players yet, and I'm not counting on them to develop a bunch anytime soon and restock the soon-to-be depleting pitching. You list only the best parts of Pie's attributes and only the worst part of Abreu's. And you have the gall to say goodness gracious when people talk of trading one for the other?

Why not? because the point is to get to the WS and win it. whether the Cubs were capable of that was debatable. whether Kerry Wood out of the pen would have helped them achieve that is debatable. there's a train of thought that if you have a shot you have to go for it. I don't subscribe to that notion, but believe others should have the right to express it. this situation is not so cut and dry as you make it out to be. the payoff in some people's eyes was the ultimate payoff, winning the world series. therefore a contrarian position is completely justifiable and appropriate, whether you agree with it or not. Anybody who thought the Cubs had a shot at winning the world series when Wood was sent to the pen was insane. I don't care if there is a train of thought that says you have to just go for it. There's a train of thought that you can't use rookies down the stretch or in the playoffs as well, but that's been proven wrong over and over. There's a train of thought that says strikeout totals are the one thing you should most avoid in a player, and that's been proven wrong. There are lots of trains of thought, but that doesn't mean they have any basis in reality. Keeping Wood active was beyond moronic last year. Unfortunately it was only one of several boneheaded decisions.

Chicago Cubs - Named Tim Wilken director of amateur and professional scouting.

.335-.340 or higher in my book For what it's worth, the league average last year was .330. Just replacing Neifi in the lineup with Pierre puts us at league average. Where we go after that, depends mostly on who Hendry acquires to play right field. Since when do Neifi and Pierre play interchangable positions?

That would be the only option only if Hendry limited himself to that being the only option.

I don't think it'll be any worse either. But I wasn't expecting this offseason to result in an offense whose biggest accomplishment was not being worse than last year's. Dubois and Holly won't be out there, but the 900+ OPS Murton won't be out there either. And some scrub veteran will get time out there, possibly Mabry and his sub .300 OBP from last year. Remember, as bad as Holly and Dubois were, the total LF line last year was .265/.319/.418, 12th in the NL (compared to 16 and 15 for CF and RF, respectively). LF was not the biggest problem. And while Murton is likely to do better than .265/.319/.418, I'm not penciling him in for a whole heck of a lot more. And he won't be the only LF. Some veteran very capable of dragging that overall number down will get time out there.

Wow, that's an awful line for Walker. I wonder how they came to that conclusion? It should be noted that going off of Walker and Cedeno's games played projections, that leaves about 80-90 starts for Neifi. There would also be some 50 games started by the mystery corner OF (Mabry?). 20 games by somebody at 3B (Mabry?), plenty of time for Blanco to bring down the total C numbers, and that is a pretty significant 100 point OPS decline by Lee. I'm not happy with that offense.

Sure as hell won't tick off me.

Mark Prior p 5 years/$10.5M (2002-06), plus incentives $4M signing bonus 02:$0.25M, 03:$0.65M, 04:$1.6M, 05:$2M base (incentives to $2.75M), 06:$2M 2003 All Star selection increased 2004-06 salaries by $0.5M/season additional $0.1M All Star incentive Prior may void final 2 years (05-06) if he qualifies for arbitration after 2004 season drafted 2001 (1-2), signed major-league contract 8/01 agent: John Boggs ML service: 2.131 http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005_01_06_mlbcontracts_archive.html This deal is weird. It sounds like he had to opt for arbitration if he was eligible last year, but he wasn't, so he's still under his first contract (2002-2006). But others are saying he can still opt out now. If he is able to opt out and take arbitration, when is that deadline? I would have thought he had to make that decision earlier, when most other options are excercised or declined.

Why would one have to think that? I have to think there's enough evidence to support the idea that this will not necessarily be the case. You're still being overly enthusiastic about the realistic rookie seasons from Murton and Cedeno. And while OBP is huge, it's not the only thing. You still need some SLG, especially when you are guaranteed bad OBP is some spots. Look, you can talk all you want about Pierre upgrade in the leadoff spot. But the fact is, while the Cubs were 16th in the NL in OPS from the CF position last year, that was not all Corey, and Florida was 15th. So, while Pierre in 2006 should be much better than Corey in 2005, the Cubs total CF production is not likely to be all that much better in 2006 than 2005. You should never get so focused on one specific area of offense that you ignore total production. If you want SB, fine, but you better watch out that you don't decrease total production just to increase one component of production. If you want more HR, fine, but don't go after HR at the risk of decreasing total production. The Cubs still have issues with the expected total production from their entire lineup.

STL and the Cubs were very close in sacrifice hits and sacrifice flies last year, in the middle of the NL pack. Sacrifices, and the little things, are not why STL had success. The big things are. The Cards ranked 3rd in OBP, and 3rd in runs scored. There's your correlation for offensive success. And they pitched extremely well. There's your overall success. Washington, San Francisco, Florida, Pittsburgh, and San Diego were among the most sacrificial teams in the league last year. Those little things are things that weaker offensive teams do, and they don't correlate to success.

You don't build an offense around what you think guys could do if things work out. You build an offense, and a team, about what is likely to happen. And Ronny is not likely to surpass last year's numbers.

And still not reflective of the likely reality. Hendry still wants Walker gone. And Neifi will play a lot. We'd have to be ecstatic with Murton being at .340. He's also not going to start 140 games. Whatever veteran Dusty has a fetish for to sub in will put up some awful numbers. Blanco will start 50 games at have a sub .300 OBP, negating some of the benefit of Barrett's better than average numbers. There is still no bench, but the bench will play. Right now the offense is no better than last year. If they get a RF who can duplicate Burnitz's numbers, the offense might be marginally better. But marginally better is not worth a $100m payroll. Marginally better is unacceptable. Hendry has a lot of work to do, or a lot of luck to hope for, to make this offense significantly better. And significantly better is the only thing Cubs fans should be remotely satisfied with.

Let me try and make myself clear. Jeff Conine shouldn't even be an option. He is not an option. You cannot even consider him.

Those numbers were done in role player capacity. Not everyday player. A 40 year old Conine is not an option for everyday player. You're talking about a guaranteed sub 800 OPS from RF, no freaking way.