VanceJergins

Eckstein is scrappy, he hustles and he tries really hard when he throws the ball over to first base. He has more clutch throws to first than anyone....except maybe Jeter.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? You could make the argument that it's ok to sacrifice offense for improved defense if you are going into the ninth inning with a lead, because ideally, you won't be batting again. However, there's not much reason to make that switch prior to the ninth, because your better hitters can still get you an insurance run or two. I think it would usually depend on who the players in question are and how much better one is than the other. Say you have Craig Wilson playing 1B and you have Doug Mientkiewicz on the bench, I would probably put in Mientkiewicz because he's a much better fielder and not a huge drop off offensively in case the opposing team does tie or take the lead in the 9th. But if you have David Ortiz at 1B and Mientkiewicz on the bench, I'd stick with Ortiz cause I'm going to want that bat in the lineup if the opposing team ties or takes the lead.

I'm not having lust pains over Figgins or anything, but he is much more valuable than Pierre. The biggest problem with him is that he has declined the past 3 years. If he had numbers like 04-05 he'd be a decent option for CF. But here is some comparison between the two the past 3 seasons: OBP: Figgins- .350, .352, .336; Pierre- .374, .326, .330 IsoD: Figgins- .054, .062, .069; Pierre- .048, .050, .038 BB: Figgins- 49, 64, 65; Pierre- 45, 41, 32 SLG: Figgins- .419, .397, .376; Pierre- .407, .354, .388 HR: Figgins- 5, 8, 9; Pierre- 3, 2, 3 SB/CS: Figgins- 34/13, 62/17, 52/16; Pierre- 45/24, 57/17, 58/20 So from those numbers Figgins is marginally better, with quite a bit more patience. Then when you add in defense, versitility, age, and cost, he is a significantly better option. But I'd still rather go with Lofton or Pie if it came down to it.

Can you remind me where the #1 priority talk is coming from? I don't remember it, other than talking about the manager. Was it said once? Or is it being restated over and over? Come to think of it, I dont remember specifically. Its just one of those things that it seems like I've heard and I thought I was sure when I posted that. You might be right, I dont really want to try and find a quote. But I will say that I have a strong feeling that Hendry truly wants to sign Ramirez.

I think the difference between this and Sosa is that none of it is coming from the Cubs. Its all coming from writers with learning disabilities that heard from ESPN that players like Eckstein are what wins championships. All we're hearing from the Cubs is that Ramirez is their #1 priority. They wouldnt say that if they were planning on not signing him because that would make it seem like their offseason isnt going well. It might not be the Cubs themselves, but it's still in the trib: True, but why would Hendry say its his #1 priority if he didnt want to resign him? That would do nothing but cause more people to lose faith in him. It could just be so he can say "look, I tried", but I think the negative of saying he's his #1 priority far outweighs the positive. I'm not saying a deal will definitely get done, but I'm convinced that Hendry really is trying to make it happen.

I think the difference between this and Sosa is that none of it is coming from the Cubs. Its all coming from writers with learning disabilities that heard from ESPN that players like Eckstein are what wins championships. All we're hearing from the Cubs is that Ramirez is their #1 priority. They wouldnt say that if they were planning on not signing him because that would make it seem like their offseason isnt going well.

I know that line from Billy Madison about incoherent rambling that has made everyone stupider for hearing it is WAAAAY over used and is just kind of annoying now.....but its never fit better.

I agree...if that unfounded rumor is true there's no reason this shouldnt get done. But as for saying Hendry "had no qualms about pissing away 7 million in combined salaries via Rusch,Nefi,Miller last season." I think the argument is better if you leave Miller off that list. He was only 1 million and could have been a big boost, I think that was a good deal for Hendry. I'm nitpicking, but wanted to point that out.

From the sounds of things, I'd be surprised if it was much more than that.

No way the Braves trade Hudson for Jones straight up. I'd do it in a heartbeat, but the Braves aren't dumb. They want to get rid of his contract and he didnt exactly have a great year. But I did have a sever brain lapse and forgot about Jeff Francoeur...so that deal probably wouldnt work. But I wouldnt be surprised if he was dealt for someone the equivilant of Jones.

http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/img/snow-winter-sucks.jpg

It'd be great if we could pull off an Eyre and Dempster for Sheffield deal. We'd get rid of some dead weight and could come out almost equal salary-wise. Then we could trade Jones for a decent bullpen arm or a 3 or 4 starter. What would you think of a Jones for Hudson deal?

If he's unhappy, I doubt he sabotages the team or anything. He may be unhappy, but he'll still play or he'll have no chance of getting a good deal with another team after next year. And I think I'd be willing to sign a one year extension, but more than that I wouldnt be excited about.

Put me in the minority that would like to get Sheffield. In the 7 years prior to this year, his lowest OBP was .379.; lowest SLG: .512; lowest AVG: .290; lowest HR total: 25; lowest BB total: 72. Granted, most of thost numbers come from the past 3 seasons, but they are still great numbers. I dont think its much of gamble that he'll be very productive if healthy, and he's only missed significant time once in the past 8 years. I'd be willing to take the gamble.

If you can spell catalanotto then you're not going to have a problem spelling murton, lee, aram, or pinch hitting now are you? =D>

If the Cubs could pull a deal for Burrell, why not deal Jones and a prospect like Mateo or Marmol for Bonderman? That's crazy. Bonderman would probably command a lot more than JJ. They seemed to value Neifi, so maybe we could offer them a package of Izturis, Cedeno, Bynum, and Jones for Bonderman, Guillen, and Ordonez.

I know I'm the minority but I kind of have the mindset that since we've waited this long, I'd rather do it right. If Bonds led us to a championship I wouldnt enjoy it nearly as much. If we had a 1/5 chance with Bonds and a 1/10 chance with Murton, I'd go with Murton. I've spend many hours day-dreaming about the Cubs celebrating on the field after winning the World Series and there's something not right about Bonds being in that dream.

I wouldnt be upset with Nixon replacing Jones as long as we got another power hitter. But nobody else on that list is anywhere near not-crappy.

Not if the mighty Ball State Cardinals have anything to say about it next week.....oh my goodness thats going to be bad. Has a football team ever won a game by more than 100 points? Michigan's offense isn't that great. Plus Lloyd Carr just runs the ball when he plays physically overmatched teams. Probably will only be a 30 point win by scUM. I predict 56-10 if Manningham plays, and I'd be shocked if he does. 45-10 if he doesn't. I'll be there so I'll be sure to report back on how much my friends and I are made fun of. No way Ball State scores 10 points, even if Michigan has their subs the whole second half. I'm also a Ball State student and I like Ball State....but this is going to be brutal. I predict 56-3.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. oh. my. so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most." I've figured out that his argument is basically the same as saying "whoever has the most runs wins". Because of course whoever wins a game has the best pitching that game, and whoever wins a series has the best pitching that series. Yes, the Cardinals won th....but this world series was not and example of good pitching beating good hitting. How can you say that, the team that pitched better won the series. Nuff said. Well my good man, I do believe thats exactly what my whole post was about. Please read the whole thing....maybe a few times. I pointed out that saying "the team that pitched the best won" is just like saying "the team that scored the most runs won".

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. oh. my. so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most." I've figured out that his argument is basically the same as saying "whoever has the most runs wins". Because of course whoever wins a game has the best pitching that game, and whoever wins a series has the best pitching that series. Yes, the Cardinals won the series, therefore, they had the best pitching that series....but this world series was not and example of good pitching beating good hitting.

Worry about this when a real writer says something about it.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. Yes, quite well....better than any team in any sport. It worked every year, from what -1996-2000? Something like that. So yes, I'd take their formula if possible.

Clutch defense? I dont think there is a such thing. I think I said "clutch hitting". For example: The Cardinals had runners on 2b with 2 outs the whole world series. Their hitters found a way to get that run in. That's clutch hitting. LOL! Next you're going to be telling me that gritty players are over-rated. "gritty players are over-rated." I'll pretend I didnt hear that.

Or maybe he'll find himself and become a better player like in the Tom Selleck movie.