davearm

Except that nobody here has or would suggest such a lineup. But please, continue with you obscene rantings and ignore the real discussion happening here. Are you kidding me? I'm dead serious: you're questioning the fact that many folks here are openly and loudly lobbying for Soto, Murton, Cedeno, Pie, etc. etc. to be starters on the Cubs? Where the heck have you been if you've missed this development? If everyone in the "just play the kids" crowd had their wish, we'd trot out a lineup very much like the one I showed above. The only difference is that DLee and ARam would be in the middle of it, surrounded by 5 rookies and Murton. Here's how it would look: Patterson LF Theriot SS Lee 1B Ramirez 3B Murton RF Soto C Pie CF Cedeno 2B We'd get smoked with that team, in all likelihood.

Seems pretty safe to assume that KW wasn't proposing that as a straight-up trade. Contreras would simply be a salary-balancer.

But you don't know that's the case. So you're settling for mediocrity rather than taking a chance on the unknown with potential. Of course I don't know that's the case. Nobody can see the future. Certainly there's the potential for the unknown to outperform the mediocrity. But there's even greater potential for the unknown to underperform the mediocrity, or for the mediocrity to return to career norms. The sort of "taking a chance" you're talking about here is the same kind that built Las Vegas. The odds are in the house's favor, but people "take a chance" anyway because it's exciting. The promise of a big payoff leads folks to ignore the negative EV. That's a pretty ridiculous mindset if you ask me. You do a really poor job of theorizing about career norms. Post-30 players playing like crap don't just return to their averages. Their averages were built up when they were better. They aren't the same player. Furthermore, there is no house here. There is no law of averages saying the odds are that crappy veterans will outperform hot hitting prospects. This is the exact same mindset that has led to the Cubs sucking so bad for so long. It's mind boggling why people still believe this nonsense. People like Lou Piniella, you mean? You're living in some sort of fantasyland if you think the Cubs would've been saved from a century of losing if only they would've simply played the cleats off of every "hot-hitting" prospect they've ever had, and ditched every proven veteran standing in that prospect's way. Now *that's* some nonsense for you. My goodness, imagine a bigleague team of: Kline C Choi/Dopirak 1B Hill 2B Montanez SS Kelton/Orie 3B Jackson/Kieshnick LF Patterson CF Harvey RF You'd lose 130 games with that lineup.

... and the sample size alarms blare. Marquis' monthly ERAs, 2004-2007: April: 3.59 May: 4.02 June: 6.12 July: 4.03 August: 5.75 September: 4.11 So historically, he's pitched like a #5 starter (or worse) in June and August, and significantly better than a #5 starter in April, May, July, and September. I don't understand what point you're addressing. The insinuation from several people all along in this thread is that Marquis has been worse than his season numbers for a while because of the downward trend. What's the relevance of 4 year monthly splits? The 4 year monthly splits spanning 100+ starts are better predictors of future performance than the "downward trend" that's supposedly evidenced by roughly a dozen starts. They're also more illustrative of the type of pitcher Marquis is. People are very quick to use terms like "awful" and "horrible" to describe Marquis. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

But you don't know that's the case. So you're settling for mediocrity rather than taking a chance on the unknown with potential. Of course I don't know that's the case. Nobody can see the future. Certainly there's the potential for the unknown to outperform the mediocrity. But there's even greater potential for the unknown to underperform the mediocrity, or for the mediocrity to return to career norms. The sort of "taking a chance" you're talking about here is the same kind that built Las Vegas. The odds are in the house's favor, but people "take a chance" anyway because it's exciting. The promise of a big payoff leads folks to ignore the negative EV.

... and the sample size alarms blare. Marquis' monthly ERAs, 2004-2007: April: 3.59 May: 4.02 June: 6.12 July: 4.03 August: 5.75 September: 4.11 So historically, he's pitched like a #5 starter (or worse) in June and August, and significantly better than a #5 starter in April, May, July, and September.

OPS 2007/career Floyd: .749/.843 Pagan: .750/.724 Jones: .664/.781 Kendall: .729/.770 Fontenot: .820/.821 And you missed DeRosa, .783/.743. Not a lot of support for your theory that the group will combine for a .600 OPS from here on out. This group seems much more likely: Pie: .617/.617 Cedeno: .446/.614 Soto: .393/.441 Patterson: n/a Murton: .674/.803 I'm all for Murton in LF. But beyond that, I think there's a whole ton of wishful thinking going on with those other guys. Settle for mediocrity (or in many cases, worse) or try for something better. You seem to be willing to settle for mediocrity, and very clearly hope for the failure of the young players on the team. I don't know, I would think the Cubs long history of failure would indicate to most that maybe, just maybe, the people in charge aren't very good at their jobs. LOL! Anticipating that the young players would underperform the vets over the next 8 weeks is nowhere close to "hoping for the failure of the young players on the team." What I'm hoping for is that people get their expectations for the young players under control. Those AAA numbers aren't automatically going to translate in the bigleagues, like too many seem to be assuming. We've seen this proven time after time. And I'll only "settle for mediocrity" if/when the alternative is worse. As for the Cubs' "long history of failure" -- pretty unfair to hang that on a guy (Piniella) that's been in town for 4 months now, dontcha think? Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's the one most responsible for the allocation of playing time that everyone's so steamed about.

OPS 2007/career Floyd: .749/.843 Pagan: .750/.724 Jones: .664/.781 Kendall: .729/.770 Fontenot: .820/.821 And you missed DeRosa, .783/.743. Not a lot of support for your theory that the group will combine for a .600 OPS from here on out. This group seems much more likely: Pie: .617/.617 Cedeno: .446/.614 Soto: .393/.441 Patterson: n/a Murton: .674/.803 I'm all for Murton in LF. But beyond that, I think there's a whole ton of wishful thinking going on with those other guys.

That begs the question, why is it hard for you to comprehend that perhaps the correct explanation here is that Marquis' stats are skewed by his July numbers (6.29 ERA in 6 starts), and the guy we saw from April through June (3.46 in 16 starts) is the "real" Marquis? If you want to throw out a stretch of starts as being anomalous, and look at the rest as being more representative of what everyone should expect going forward, then why is it that you choose to throw out three months and 16 starts' worth of results, and keep one month and 6 starts' worth? And while I'm at it, why should we expect Marquis' 2006 season (6.02 ERA) to be the proper benchmark for his future production, and not his 2005 (4.13) or 2004 (3.71) seasons?

It'd almost be worth it to me to see the Cubs play Soto ©, Patterson (LF), Murton (RF), Pie (CF), and Cedeno (2B) everyday for the rest of the season, and put up a collective .600 OPS, leading to an average of 2.5 runs per game, leading to the Cubs finishing 7 games out of the NL Central, if it would mean the folks second-guessing and whining about young guys never getting a proper chance would finally have to stick a cork in it. Amazing that nobody ever stops to consider that just maybe the folks in charge of making these decisions actually know more than you do. Murton I'd agree seems to be getting a bum rap after the year he had in 2006, although until just now he's been a man without a position. Every other one of those kids has either no MLB track record, or a poor one. It's somewhere between very risky and utterly foolish to turn over your pennant hopes to a whole bunch of guys like that. One or two raw rookies you can work with, but I swear some folks here think the Cubs could win more games by just trotting out the I-Cubs lineup. Happy flaming.

Yeah but you want them to have to beat your best. That is Myers. Nobody would've brought in their closer there. Gordon's good enough to get him, Fielder was better in that AB. They need to win games to catch the Mets. We beat the Mets today presenting them with the opportunity to do such a thing. Their closer is a starter, from this year. I don't think it was improbable to use your closer there. And if they brought Myers in and he tired in the 9th, we'd all be saying what a bad decision that was. The guy hit a homer, then Clark stole one from them. The Brewers did way more to win than the Phillies did to lose. That maybe, but I was always under the impression you wanted to lose with your best. Yeah stupid Charlie Manuel. Should've brought in Myers to face Braun in the 1st. come on that isn't what I am arguing at all. I am thinking a closer who used to start this year would be able to go 2 innings. Way to be an ass though. Curious if you realize that Myers spent two months on the DL, and hasn't pitched earlier than the 9th inning, or for more than an one inning, since his return. Somehow I doubt it.

Yeah but you want them to have to beat your best. That is Myers. Nobody would've brought in their closer there. Gordon's good enough to get him, Fielder was better in that AB. They need to win games to catch the Mets. We beat the Mets today presenting them with the opportunity to do such a thing. Their closer is a starter, from this year. I don't think it was improbable to use your closer there. And if they brought Myers in and he tired in the 9th, we'd all be saying what a bad decision that was. The guy hit a homer, then Clark stole one from them. The Brewers did way more to win than the Phillies did to lose. That maybe, but I was always under the impression you wanted to lose with your best. Yeah stupid Charlie Manuel. Should've brought in Myers to face Braun in the 1st.

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part. I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring. As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass. Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs. I agree with this completely. If the Cubs pass the Brewers in the standings before they tried to make a deal, the Brewers would block the Cubs, but I'm not sure if any other teams would or not (possibly a team or two in the WC race). Really? I can't think of any examples of this, but I can think of examples where players are claimed to block him from getting to other teams. Anyone know of any? Also, whoever we'd trade for Church would have to pass by the reds and pirates. I'm just saying there aren't many teams that are so concerned about the Cubs that they would block the deal. The Brewers if they are in position to block definitely would. The Cardinals? possibly. Braves? I doubt it. The NL West teams? Hard to say. It's more because Church would be an economical, decent pickup for someone. Teams don't have to claim him just because they're trying to foil the Cubs' plans. They can do it just because Church works for them and their own plans. And that opens up pretty much every team in the league under us. Exactly. I'm sure there are some teams below us in the standings who'd like to have a player with a decent bat who can play CF and is only making $400,000 on the season. So they make a call to Bowden and see if they can put a deal together. If they can't, then there's no point in making the claim. It would just piss off the other GMs around the league, especially Bowden. Why would the GM of a team out of contention harm their reputation for nothing? Now the GM of a team in contention is another story. That guy could make a legit strategic argument for not letting a guy pass, and presumably there would not be hard feelings if he did. The bottom line is that there are probably only a few teams the Cubs would have to be concerned about... not a dozen.

There is a 0% chance of this happening with Church basically making the minimum salary. It's bad reporting on Levine's part. I dunno about that. There seems to be a sort of gentleman's agreement that discourages GMs from placing frivolous claims on guys that they have no hope or intention of acquiring. As I understand it, the common courtesy is that if you see a guy on waivers that you'd like to have, and who would clearly be pulled back if you put in a claim, a GM first places a call to see if a deal can be arranged before formally filing a claim. If a deal's there to be made, then the claim is made. If not, then the guy is allowed to pass. Now to be sure, that gentleman's agreement is not always followed, and over the years teams have certainly gone against this little piece of GM etiquette. Steve Phillips infamously placed claims on hundreds of players one year. Nevertheless, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that a guy like Church would never make it through to the Cubs.

The intent is to throw to one of the two, and he succeeded in doing so. This thing is not drawn up like some sort of option play, where the OF has a choice of which infielder to throw to. And "just throw it somewhere over thisaway and one of the guys will grab it" is certainly not the plan. The design is to have the first guy as the intended cutoff man, with the second, trailing guy giving the first guy (who has his back to the infield awaiting the OF's throw) verbal direction on where to go with the relay throw. Providing backup for the OF's throw is guy #2's secondary responsibility. The bottom line is that if the ball ends up with guy #2, there was a problem with the throw in from the OF... either the throw itself was offline or long/short, or possibly guy #1 wasn't where he should've been.

Only problem is that we'd be paying the price the Reds want for Dunn, and I don't think we want to do that for Church + Rauch. Not really if the Nationals put in a couple pieces for the Reds. Starting with Rauch, who the Cubs don't need.

In order to get better players back?

Does anybody remember the day that Doug Mirabelli was traded back to the Red Sox on Wakefield's day to pitch? The Sox picked him up at the airport and he jumped out of a limo in full uniform and basically ran right onto the field minutes before the first pitch. Well this morning I was imagining the Cubs whisking Griffey from O'Hare to Wrigley in time for tonight's game. In my version though, the limo pulls up on Sheffield moments before the first pitch is thrown, and Griffey goes straight through the "knot hole" gate to take his position in RF.

Actually you've got it backwards. MLB's escalating salaries work to inflate the values of the young/cheap guys we have, and would be giving up. Meanwhile those spiraling contracts make it harder to find $12M for Griffey, or $9M for Renteria, when your payroll is being gobbled up elsewhere. Practically everyone around baseball is desperate for guys that can be solid, productive bigleaguers for the league minimum. We're giving up several such players in this deal. It may not be enough, but the value proposition is definitely a strong selling point.

That's a fair point that Carroll is making. Jim Hendry could say to Joe assistant GM, "call down to Texas and see if they'll take Pie for Laird." Hendry hasn't spoken to Daniels. Hendry hasn't made Pie available.

Cubs: Griffey, Renteria Braves: Arroyo Reds: Theriot, Murton, Kroeger, Veal, Hart

Team isn't exactly hovering around .500 anymore... check the standings you are wrong. They are yet to reach 10 over, all it takes is a 3-4 game losing streak and they are right back down there. Add a 4 or 5 game winning streak and they have the best record in the NL. Gotta look at it both ways... Having the best record in the NL, is kind of like having the best tasting poop. Id rather push us to being a top team in the Majors, but if just hopeing to make the playoffs is ok with you then thats fine. I have a little higher standards, and its right there for the taking, but instead Hendry would rather sit back and "hope". I love posts like this. You have absolutely NO idea what Hendry has looked into and what trade opportunities he has explored. We are still 20+ hours away from the deadline. Who knows what he may be looking at. This isn't a defense of Hendry, but to emphatically state he's "hoping" without having any idea what he may be up to is silly. Well said Bruno. Keener you come off looking incredibly foolish here. a) you don't have any proof whatsoever that "Hendry would rather sit back and hope". Much more likely is that he's working the phones aggressively looking for a deal or two that would help the team, if the price is right. b) you don't have the foggiest idea what offers are out there, so to criticize the Cubs if they stand pat is just utterly absurd. Standing pat would be far, far smarter than sending Marmol for Dye, or Pie for Laird. Whatever Hendry or anyone else has said so far about being happy with the guys they've got, blah blah is just a bunch of cliche. Of course they're going to say that. It doesn't mean a thing.

If the O's can get out from under Payton's contract without throwing in any cash, it'd be a great deal for them. He's their Jacque Jones.

Baltimore is almost certainly open to dealing him. The reason his name isn't out there prominently is mostly because of the questionmark his wrist injury presents. Between the wrist, his already-declining power, his suspect defense, and the fact that he's still got $30M coming, teams seem to have shifted into wait-and-see mode.

After the deadline, players must pass through "revocable" waivers prior to being traded. For this example, let us assume there is a formerly great player, Maynard Wingtip of the Texas Rangers, who now pretty much sucks except for hitting against LHP, which he still does quite well. Wingtip's contract calls for him to be paid $15 million in each of the next two seasons. The Red Sox have a need for a player who can mash LHP. They have some interest in Wingtip, but only if the Rangers pick up some of his remaining salary. The Rangers have indicated a willingness to do so, if they get some good prospects in return. So, on August 5th, the Rangers place Maynard Wingtip on revocable waivers. These are called revocable waivers because the Rangers can pull him back off of waivers at any time. The Yankees, not wanting the Red Sox to improve themselves, have the option of claiming Wingtip on waivers, effectively blocking the Red Sox from acquiring him. The Yankees have this opportunity because their record is worse than that of the Red Sox. Please see my earlier post about the order of waiver claim opportunity. If the Yankees put in a claim, the Rangers can do one of two things - they can pull Wingtip back off of waivers and keep him, or they can let the Yankees have him, contract and all. In this example, it is extremely unlikely that the Yankees would ever claim Wingtip, because they would most likely wind up stuck with him and his inflated contract. This is why players with small remaining financial obligations generally have trouble making it through waivers and players with large remaining financial obligations often pass through easily. Also, I believe this is true, but am not 100% certain: A team can attempt to get a player through waivers only once. If they try and wind up pulling him back, they cannot later try to get him through waivers again. Please feel free to correct anything I may have gotten wrong. If a guy is claimed, the team actually has three options: * let him go to the claiming team * pull him back * arrange a trade with the team that made the claim.