Caryatid

Fact is, Neifi was a lot more than decent for about 4 months........ Perez AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 04/04 - 04/30 68 11 25 2 1 3 38 12 3 7 0.368 0.403 0.559 0.962 05/17 - 06/05 83 11 33 5 0 3 47 12 1 5 0.398 0.407 0.566 0.973 07/10 - 09/07 162 15 55 17 1 2 80 19 6 10 0.340 0.363 0.494 0.857 Overall 313 37 113 24 2 8 165 43 10 22 0.361 0.383 0.527 0.911 Man, if he did that in 313 ABs, how bad were the other 259 ABs for him to end up with a .298 OBP and .681 OPS? Looks like for the remainder of the year (257 ABs), he hit .169 with 1 home run, 13 RBI and 8 BBs. Talk about hot and cold....

BOSTON -- The Boston Red Sox placed left-hander David Wells on the 15-day disabled list Saturday with a right knee injury and called up right-hander Jermaine Van Buren from Triple-A Pawtucket. Wells had offseason surgery on the knee and struggled in his only start of the season, an 8-4 loss to Toronto last Wednesday, after beginning the season on the disabled list. He allowed seven runs on 10 hits -- three of them homers -- before being removed with no outs in the fifth inning. After Friday night's game against Seattle, Wells received a shot of the joint lubricant Synvisc in the knee. It normally is administered in a series of three injections one week apart. The 42-year-old Wells was placed on the disabled list retroactive to Thursday and can be activated no earlier than April 28. Last season, his first with Boston, he was 15-7 with a 4.45 ERA. The Red Sox obtained Van Buren in a trade with the Chicago Cubs last Dec. 1st. In his only major league experience, Van Buren was 0-2 with a 3.00 ERA in six innings for the Cubs last year.

Just got home...anybody know which channel CSN+ is for Directv in Chicago?

Oh. My. God. Three pages dedicated to an analysis of a skunk/fishing analogy. And I was dumb enough to read through the whole thing. I think I'm the skunk. Or the fish. Whatever they are...

Or do the Cardinals really not look like anything special this year? I know they got a lot of preseason hype, but (even though its just two games) they look like a team with about 4-5 good players (Pujols, Rolen, Carpenter, Izzy, and maybe Edmonds) and NOTHING else. I don't particularly think the Cubs will be all that good this year, but I certainly don't see much from the Cardinals, either. Maybe that's just me overreacting to two games, but really-not seeing much in terms of potential from that team.

Yes he is. A good game does not erase a terrible career. My point is is that is getting a little ridiculous to see everybody freak out if he is in the starting lineup. He shouldn't be a starter, but obviously he will start some games this year. Can we stop the NSBB PMS whenever he is starting? People freak out because Dusty is dumb enough to keep starting him if he does well. And that people keep freaking out that Dusty is dumb enough to put him in the 2 hole, where he should be at the 8th hole. I'm fairly amazed that people are complaining about a guy after he goes 3-4 and the team wins. Is he awful? Yes. Should he start? No. Should everyone relax and just enjoy the win, at least for about an HOUR after it has happened? Of course. The whole idea of sports is to have something to enjoy-can't we all just enjoy the win, complaint-free, for a little while? Here's my pledge: I will not complain about Neifi Perez in the 24 hours after he gets more than 2 hits in a game and commits no errors in a game for the remainder of the season. I hope I never complain about him once. If I'm wrong about Neifi and Baker, and that means the Cubs get to the WS, I'm much happier than if I'm right and we finish 4th. I'm not sure everyone feels the same.

Given the revelations regarding steroid use over the last ten years, and considering the rules of the game over that same time that seemingly gave hitters every possible advantage, does that take pitchers like Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson (who both are more than likely to have never taken 'roids themselves) and vault them to the top of the all time list? I think if there's all this willingness to re-evaluate the record books as it relates to hitters (Bonds, McGwire, et.al.), shouldn't then we reconsider the accomplishments of the pitchers who remained off the juice and still totally dominated? In my head, that seems to make guys like Maddux all that much better and, dare I say, at least in the top three all time. Rip away...

That's easy: Juan Cruz. He had good numbers as a starter, then Dusty put him in the bullpen where he sucked, and unfortunately the reliever label has stuck to him. Cruz' career could have taken a whole different trajectory if Dusty had displayed as much patience with him as a starter as was given to Shawn Estes. Ha! That's pretty funny. The two great organizations in ATL and OAK both gave up on Cruz because of the "reliever label Dusty stuck to him"? Maybe it is instead just because he was overated and not that good. Nah, blame it on Dusty. The whole question of damage done by a manager is really virtually impossible to prove. If a player is ruined by a manager and never recovers, people who defend the manager will say that "he just wasn't any good," when in fact it very well could have been that he was screwed up at a prime age and never recovered. Then again, he could have never been good in the first place. Either way, the actual damage done by a bad manager is impossible to really prove. Its possible that Cruz, Choi, Hill, etc. were just bad. Its also possible that Baker's bad managing ruined them forever. But simply because the players have not been good since leaving the Cubs does not absolve Baker from responsibility, nor does it prove that they weren't any good in the first place. Its solely an unprovable opinion...either way.

Its not a fetish for young guys. Its a fetish for players with high ceilings who are more likely, over a 162 game season, to help a team win games. Cedeno has shown in MLB at bats that he can play. He has shown in 60 ABs in meaningless spring training that he has trouble in meaningless spring games. If 60 bad ABs is all it takes to remove someone from the starting lineup, then Perez should have been gone in May last year. And citing Perez's .274 is meaningless when his OBP is .298, and his career OBP-not Colorado, but OVERALL-is .301. So your suggestion about him somehow getting on base at a .330-.340 clip, when he has never had over a .320 OBP in a full season in his career is absolutely ridiculous.

I did notice that most writers did not make a big deal of the quote. But I've feared for quite some time that Ronny will be on an incredibly short leash. And while it's true that most teams operate this way, that doesn't make it a sound practice. So it doesn't take much to start worrying. Ronny has to be given a chance to fail, and fail badly, then get the chance to play through it and rebound before being replaced by such dead weight as Neifi. Neifi guarantees ONLY a .300 OBP? That was ONE YEAR! Worst OBP in his career. He could have a .330-.340 year for all we know. And that guy is FAR from dead weight, man. Neifi Perez has a career OBP of .301. Last year was one of his BEST years, OBP-wise. Enough said.

(sarcasm on)Dang, man...you gotta throw the grammar thing in my face? (sarcasm off) I didn't think it was all that unclear. Then again, I wrote it. I was simply stating that I didn't want to be perceived as a blind Billy Beane supporter, but the A's have done it, for the most part, the right way for ten years.

I don't think the Braves and the A's are all that much different. They both typically have one or two star players, and build around them with good, complimentary young players. The Braves can fill roles with somewhat more expensive players due to their payroll situation, but both seem to value youth over the "known" mediocrity. Very seldom have the Braves taken the "sure thing," and when they did, it typically bit them (Mondesi, etc.) For Braves examples, see Chipper Jones, Andruw Jones, Marcus Giles (during the first incarnation), and obviously now Francoeur, Betemit, etc. I don't think the Cubs promote too fast, I simply think they don't have a structure in place that can allow a young player the opportunity to succeed at the major league level. If you look at the ages of guys like Andruw Jones and Jeff Francoeur when they came in the league, its arguable that they promote much quicker than do the Cubs. Fortunately for them, they have a structure in place at the major leage level with a true teacher as manager (Cox) that allows the players to grow and contribute. Its not an issue of when they get promoted, its how they're dealt with once they get up to the big leagues.

Whether it's right or wrong, it's like this on every team in baseball and in many industries: Young workers (or baseball players) have to prove themselves, and experienced hands get the benefit of the doubt. On top of it, the front office signed Neifi to a guaranteed two-year deal. You're right about every team in baseball. Except, of course, for the Oakland A's. Sure has hurt their chances this year. The A's haven't played a game yet. We'll see what their chances are. The Cubs will have two young players, almost rookies, in their starting lineup: Cedeno and Murton. They'll also start a rookie on ESPN Sunday night baseball: Sean Marshall. They also used more young players in spring training than I've seen in nine years of traveling with the team. Let's see how it plays out. Oh, and I picked the A's to win their division. I don't want to be Mr. Moneyball (because I think it can be taken too far), but I just don't understand why baseball is attached to this line of thinking when a team like the A's has proven for nearly 10 years that shrewd use of young players and refusing to overpay for mediocre veterans is not only a successful long-term strategy, but also can work in the short-term (thus insuring the job security so many GMs cite as the reason they stick with mediocre veterans). If I'm running a business and a competitor is doing as well as I am, but doing it more efficiently and with lower costs, I'm going to steal his idea. Why don't GMs get this? Is "traditional values" that powerful of a restraint?

Whether it's right or wrong, it's like this on every team in baseball and in many industries: Young workers (or baseball players) have to prove themselves, and experienced hands get the benefit of the doubt. On top of it, the front office signed Neifi to a guaranteed two-year deal. You're right about every team in baseball. Except, of course, for the Oakland A's. Sure has hurt their chances this year.

The bigger issue here, of course, is that if the numbers were completely reversed (Cedeno and Perez), Baker would be falling over himself in the media every day doing his best to say how much confidence he has in Neifi, how Neifi has "done it for years," and how he can't afford to just give people playing time based upon ST numbers. The point is that young players, on this team, have to be so above-and-beyond better than the mediocre veteran they're competing with (see Sean Marshall) to even rate an eyebrow raise from Baker. And then, at the slightest bit of faltering, he undermines their position by planting quotes in the paper about how they need to step up. The equation is simple: Perez guarantees you an OBP of .300 or less and a decent glove. Cedeno guarantees you nothing, but the potential for a higher ceiling is there. If, as many people have stated, the year "depends upon the pitching," then putting Cedeno out there costs the Cubs nothing, and has the potential for being a big plus. I don't see what the problem is. What will be even more interesting is when Murton has a week where he hits .200 (as every player does)...what creaky veteran will see the HollyTime then?

First post here-yet another defection from the ESPN.com board. I've seen quite a few people that have lauded Jim Hendry because he "wasn't stupid enough to give Furcal $13 million." Now, I can understand that. My question is this, and I stress that it is not a loaded question. I'm wondering what actually is thought by people: Would the Cubs be better off: a.) overpaying Furcal by 2-3 million per year for 3 years(as it was reported that he wanted the Cubs to come close to the Dodgers offer) and starting Patterson in right (at 3 million per) or: b.) losing out on Furcal and paying Jones 5.5. million per year for three years(2.5 million more than Patterson would have earned)? To me, it looks like financially there is almost no difference between the two, so from a pure talent perspective, which do you feel makes the Cubs better?