seanimal

June 22nd, 2012. It will last for four days.

Haha, what a dope. Anyway, I wonder if any other message boards will link this hot-breaking rumor on their message board? Church for an A-baller seems like a steal, depending.

We better win the next two, we've got a really tough series against the Mets coming up.

Of course every team in the NL Central is at the bottom of that... And I can't tell...is that overall schedule or just what's left? And no American League team has an easier schedule than anyone in the National League... That's exactly what I was wondering. I really wish I knew how that was calculated, but I imagine he considers his formula 'proprietary' and doesn't want to just give it away. I would guess it is recalculated based on the records of the teams played and yet to play. My thoughts: 1) Strong teams are at a disadvantage because they win more games, thus making their schedule 'weaker' by simply playing better. Conversely, weaker teams make their schedule 'stronger' by simply playing worse than their opponents. 2) Strength of schedule in baseball only has limited, if any, value when attempting to determine how strong a team is compared to their record. Pythagorean record is a much better indicator of how well a team has played, IMO. If any of the resident experts could chime in that would be excellent.

The last I heard was that Seattle was also on his list for teams that he would go to. It's all speculation, but it makes sense.

I couldn't find anything about how it's calculated, but according to this site, the Cubs have the weakest schedule in all of baseball.

That's a fair assessment. However, I'm at the point where I'm willing to take a chance at mortgaging the future if it means a serious run at the World Series. I wouldn't want to give Pie up for a player that I'm not certain makes a lot of difference. On the other hand, Dunn likely makes up the difference and makes us a 91-92 win team which I think wins this division easily. I also think it would greatly improve our offense as a Ramirez-Dunn-Lee middle would be imposing especially when surrounded by Soriano and nice role players like Theriot, Fontenot, DeRosa and others. I can see where you're coming from in terms of mortgaging the future, but I think Dunn might be a bit of a gamble in the sense that I don't trust his production. I doubt his production in August and September will be that .6whatever OPS that he crapped out last year, but there's a decent chance he won't be putting up a .900 OPS. Now, that being said, even if he doesn't put that up, it is still an upgrade over what we are running out there. In addition, he sort of lessens the problem of our lack of power hitting, but at the same time, he only compounds our issues against left-handed pitching. I think the really smart move here is to keep Pie and hope that someone who is really awesome at hitting LHP and generally does so for power but will also fit nicely into a platoon situation w/Floyd/DeRosa. Let's call this person S. Sosa. No, that's too obvious. How about Sammy S. He can be had for cheap, fills some meaningless (on the field) nostalgia value, and would address a couple of our issues (power and hitting vs LHP) while not having to mortgage the future.

That really would be incredible news, and would give me hope that the Cubs would be able to keep up with the Brewers next season.

That took all of one post to completely derail. :roll: How is it derailing? The topic of the thread is what you'd do, and Vance answered what he'd do. Exactly. The thread asked what would "I" do. I'd go after Dunn with a full-court press. Of the players that might be available, I think he'd be a legitimate upgrade over Cliff Floyd. Now, in more detail, I'd like Posada over all the impending FA. But with the Yankees within striking distance of the wild card, he's not available. "Hip Hip Jorge" would be just what this team needs. But, if I could get Dunn for a package of Pie + Mateo + Holliman, I'd do that. Or mayvbe Murton + Wuertz or some variation of those deals without giving up a starter on the major league club, I'd do the deal without thinking twice. If we got Dunn, we could try him in right, or better, move Soriano to right and then put Dunn in left. His production whether we hit him 2nd, 4th, or 5th would be an improvement. I would not look to add a bullpen arm. The benefit in comparison to cost just doesn't wow me at all. I'd look at Dye, but unless he could be had for a low level prospect, I'd pass. I just don't think two months (+ playoffs?) of Dunn is worth losing Pie, and I love Dunn. If he didn't have that clause that makes him a FA after this season if he's traded, I would consider it more. I'm a bit of a Pie homer though.

Rocky Cherry, we hardly knew ye. For the better, I would imagine.

I was thinking the same thing myself.

Supposedly, they just gave up Decarlmen.

Well it appears you're more interested in having a pissing match that actually talking about baseball so I'm done here.

Let's re-focus to the point of this convo: The guy hit nearly 400 HRs. While this does not mean he was good, it does mean he was not terrible. Why are you having so much trouble understanding this? I never said he was terrible. I simply asked you to explain why he wasn't. So far, we have a link, 'the stats speak for themselves', and 'the guy hit nearly 400 HR's'. Sure, 400 HR's. Yay. Good total. However, the rest of the numbers that the guy put out in his career are really not very good. Some people would say, *gasp*, that a person who is not very good at baseball, is 'terrible'. Call it hyperbole, call it over-reaction, fine. But at the end of the day, all you are doing is arguing semantics and offering little in the way of analysis. Joe Carter was not a very good baseball player. Your condescension and insults do little to change this.

you say that as if the Cubs have had hitters go elsewhere and blossom into great hitters since...oh, let's say anytime in the past 20-25 years. Joe Carter wasn't to shabby now was he, I believe he has a couple rings on his finger! I wasn't talking about just hitters I was talking about any player, pitcher, batter and ballgirl for that matter. Joe Carter was pretty terrible. No he wasn't: http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cartejo01.shtml I hadn't realized that having a baseball reference page made a baseball player not terrible. And I hadn't realized that you are blind and cannot see the link. Makes me wonder how you read the rest of the posts here. Temporary vision? I was commenting on the fact that you simply offered up a link without any possible discussion as to why Joe Carter would or wouldn't be "terrible". If I was 'blind' and couldn't 'see the link', how would I know that it was a baseball reference page? Work on your insults guy. I wasn't being literal, I was simply commenting on the fact that that his stats speak for themselves. Apparently you are not able to understand them. Or perhaps you do not understand or know the definition of "terrible". Shall I post something for you on that also? Well then, please explain to me how a career .306 OBP isn't terrible. Aside from his inordinately high RBI total (poor measure of a hitter's worth) and decent amount of HR's, what exactly was Joe Carter good at? Someone who 'lets the stats speak for themselves' probably has no idea what they're talking about.

I wouldn't think Williams would have much apprehension towards trading to the Cubs. He's going to try to get the best return possible. Those who are saying that he might hesitate to pull the trigger on a deal with the Cubs are assuming that he wouldn't want to serve up the piece that puts the Cubs over the top, since they are direct competitors in the same market.

Exactly. It wouldn't cost much us much to keep Dye for the rest of the season, and if he can be productive, especially hit the ball for power, I think that would be an excellent move.

That's a pretty good return because Kyle Lohse sucks.

you say that as if the Cubs have had hitters go elsewhere and blossom into great hitters since...oh, let's say anytime in the past 20-25 years. Joe Carter wasn't to shabby now was he, I believe he has a couple rings on his finger! I wasn't talking about just hitters I was talking about any player, pitcher, batter and ballgirl for that matter. Joe Carter was pretty terrible. No he wasn't: http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cartejo01.shtml I hadn't realized that having a baseball reference page made a baseball player not terrible. And I hadn't realized that you are blind and cannot see the link. Makes me wonder how you read the rest of the posts here. Temporary vision? I was commenting on the fact that you simply offered up a link without any possible discussion as to why Joe Carter would or wouldn't be "terrible". If I was 'blind' and couldn't 'see the link', how would I know that it was a baseball reference page? Work on your insults guy.

I'd rather give up Hill than Marshall at this point. Does Cabrera still have one more year of arbitration or is he a FA after this season?

you say that as if the Cubs have had hitters go elsewhere and blossom into great hitters since...oh, let's say anytime in the past 20-25 years. Joe Carter wasn't to shabby now was he, I believe he has a couple rings on his finger! I wasn't talking about just hitters I was talking about any player, pitcher, batter and ballgirl for that matter. Joe Carter was pretty terrible. No he wasn't: http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cartejo01.shtml I hadn't realized that having a baseball reference page made a baseball player not terrible.

very funny, Floyd should play but not every day,he can't physically handle it and by the way Murton had it figured out at AAA, both offensively and defensively. player B isn't Floyd Are you really campaigning for Pagan over Murton? no, just playing devil's advocate and maybe trying to explain why LOU would start one over the other. career numbers are good and all, but I think Lou is a "what have you done for me lately" guy, and clearly Pagan has made the better of his AB's this year than Murton has Yeah, Lou didn't see Murton last year, though I'm sure he's seen the stats. Pagan has hit better this year with the big league club, but I think it has just as much to do with hitting as it does with those two things Lou identified in that now infamous press conference: baserunning and defense. Pagan is... serviceable on the basepaths with excellent speed and he plays good defense. In Murton's time up with the club this season, he looked awful in those aspects. That's not to say that the choice of Pagan over Murton does justice to what he can do on the field when given regular playing time, but I just don't see Lou as wanting to take the chance of giving Murton that significant time that he needs, for better or for worse.

I may be completely wrong, but scouts aren't there to find out numbers they can read on the internet. They are there to look at the player, see what his skill-set is, things of that nature. Completely different from using a three game statistical sample as the end-all of his worth to a potential suitor.

Yeah, this will be an interesting next couple of days. It could go either way.

Yeah that was pretty wierd, but then made funny by that reaction.