fromthestretch

That's interesting.... :-k I would think it would make more sense to put Mora in the outfield, considering he has played quite a bit of CF and LF in his career and was actually decent with the glove.

The two main rumored targets for leadoff are Furcal and Pierre. Walker had a better OBP than both of them in 2005. Not to mention that he'll make signifcantly less money than Furcal and at least $1.5 million less than Pierre. His career OBP is the exact same as Furcal. Get an impact bat and let Walker leadoff. If you can get an impact bat AND a legitmate leadoff hitter, great. If not, the impact bat should be the priority. Well Walker is obvious. I have been a proponent of him leading off since day one, but if Dusty isn't going to bat him leadoff, then it is really irrelevant. It wouldn't be irrelevant if Hendry would step up and either fire Dusty or make it very clear to him that Neifi Perez and Corey Patterson are not on this roster to leadoff.

The two main rumored targets for leadoff are Furcal and Pierre. Walker had a better OBP than both of them in 2005. Not to mention that he'll make signifcantly less money than Furcal and at least $1.5 million less than Pierre. His career OBP is the exact same as Furcal. Get an impact bat and let Walker leadoff. If you can get an impact bat AND a legitmate leadoff hitter, great. If not, the impact bat should be the priority.

I read somewhere that he went back to a lower arm angle this year like he had in college. From my understanding, the Mets had him throwing a lot more over the top prior to this season. Once he went back to his preivous arm angle, the movement came back. He was very good out of the bullpen this year.

He's an OK leadoff hitter that has had TWO down years...2002 and 2005. He doesn't walk much, which means that if he doesn't hit over .300, his OBP is going to be less than desirable. Well, good thing he's a career .305 hitter then. Also, he walks just as much as Todd Walker, and a lot of you were and still are calling him a good leadoff option. Career .305 hitter or not, the two seasons he didn't hit .300, his OBP wasn't impressive at all...and one of those years was in Colorado. I look at Pierre, and I see two things he brings to the table: great contact and great speed. That great speed doesn't mean squat if he isn't getting on base to use it. He has virtually no power at all. His numbers in the triples column are nice to look at, but you also have to factor in where he played half his games - Colorado and Florida...two teams that have spacious outfields in their stadiums. (NOTE: The argument about his lack of power has nothing to do with his ability to leadoff and get on base...just pointing out that outside of contact and speed, he doesn't bring much else to the table.) As for your comparison with Walker...Walker has walked once every 12.2 plate appearances for his career, which isn't exceptional, but still better than Pierre, who has walked once every 16.6 plate appearances. Walker was the best option on the Cubs roster to bat leadoff. I'd still be fine with him batting leadoff in 2006, if the Cubs would take the Furcal money and use it somehow to get some big bats for the outfield. Pierre is probably going to make between $4 and 5 million in 2006. Walker will make $2.5 million. Walker's OBP has been over .350 the past two seasons (and in five of the last six years)...not ideal, but much better than what the Cubs got out of the leadoff spot in 2005.

I should just note that in the end those BOTH count as ONE WIN. Its not a very strong argument. At all. Say we go into that game into September two games back instead of one and we could look back at that game against the Pirates (which was lost by one run), if I went "DAMMIT that failed stolen base attempt against the Pirates cost us so much," would I be wrong? In the end a win is a win, and a game in September only has meaning if you were winning before it. Once again, I was just responding to a post that said stolen bases aren't valuable. I tend to disagree. I never said sign Pierre because hypothetically he could win us a game with a stolen base. Pierre being fast is not going to hurt this team. Speed is a good thing. Just looking at his SB% doesn't tell you everything. He is a good leadoff hitter who had 1 down year. I think he'll bounce back and be a very good for this team next year. He's an OK leadoff hitter that has had TWO down years...2002 and 2005. He doesn't walk much, which means that if he doesn't hit over .300, his OBP is going to be less than desirable.

How can you say that when you know that Dusty likes a 12-man pitching staff? :D

He's not good as a starter, but he has a chance to be a very good reliever. However, if he really wants to start, he can do it for another team.

I'd rather have Heilman, which was another Walker trade rumor.

viewtopic.php?t=26480 I'm definitely a fan of Heilman. I think he could turn out to be a good closer someday. However, I'm not sure I'd be willing to trade Walker until the SS situation is resolved or they acquire another starting 2B. I'm comfortable with a middle infield of Cedeno/Walker. I'm not comfortable with a middle infield of Cedeno/Perez...or Cedeno/Hairston for that matter.

I would imagine that would be contingent on Atlanta getting Lugo signed to an extension. Isn't he a free agent after 2006?

I think you need to look at this in context. Personally, I'm not upset that the Cubs have players with a history of injury on the team. What bothers me is that the fallback options in 2005 were weak. If you are going to have a Nomar on your roster, you can't afford to have a bench spot occupied by Macias. You need to make sure that you have better bench options. Injuries are going to happen...even to people that don't have a history of injury. A player might get hit by a pitch and break a bone. A middle infielder might get hurt on a hard slide by a runner coming into second base. Collisions in the outfield happen (see Mike Cameron). You just need to make sure you have enough options so that if an injury does happen, you have someone you're comfortable plugging into that spot for an extended period of time. Either that or you need to have the resources and presence of mind to make a trade for someone that you can plug into that spot soon after the injury, if you anticipate that the injured player is going to be out for more than just a few weeks. You also need to have a productive enough lineup/pitching staff where if someone gets hurt, you can still manage to score/prevent runs. If Nomar gets hurt, I'm comfortable with Cedeno starting everyday, with Neifi backing him up. You can't expect to replace the production of a Mark Prior if he gets hurt. That said, the Cubs have several people they can put on the mound every fifth day that should be somewhat effective.

The backup plan is probably Cedeno. If you don't get Furcal, start Cedeno at short, keep Walker at 2B. Neifi is the primary backup for both. You can also keep Hairston as a backup for 2B and OF if you want. They also have Fontenot and Theriot as possible bench options. Throw the Furcal money at the outfield then. Let Murton play left and get two very good bats for RF and CF...probably one via free agency and one via trade. I'm more worried about the outfield than I am about the infield. Because the Cubs have so many options for middle infield, I think bringing back Nomar, if the price is reasonable, would have been a good idea. They'd still have plenty of money for the outfield that way, and they could deal Hairston to a team looking for a second baseman. Also, no matter how you look at this...there doesn't appear to be a Macias in the mix. :)

No one is comparing him to Clemens or Ryan, just using them as examples to show that the number in the win column isn't exactly the best way to judge how well a guy pitched. But if you're so hellbent on individual wins, why aren't you looking at losses as well? He's only lost 54 games...for a .565 winning percentage. While that's not an eye-popping winning percentage, it's not that bad when you look at some of the Cubs teams he pitched for. Plus, I'm willing to overlook his 2000 season, since that was his first year back from Tommy John surgery. Let's break down how you actually get a win. AS A TEAM, you need to outscore your opponent. This means that: a) Your offense needs to score. b) Your pitcher(s), with some help from the defense, needs to give up less than your offense scores. Anyone with half a brain can see that the pitcher doesn't have much control over the first thing. So let's focus on the second: preventing runs. Wood ranks 17th among active pitchers in career ERA (min. 1000 IP) at 3.67. That tells me he's better than average at preventing runs. But let's look at some other numbers, too: He's second among active pitchers with 10.4 strikeouts/9 IP. He's 17th among active pitchers in WHIP at 1.257. While he may tend to walk batters, he doesn't give up a lot of hits. Fewer baserunners = fewer runs. That said, I would like to see his control improve. Bottom line, Wood has pitched better than his win total indicates. With better offense and a better bullpen, he would have easily won more games from 2001-2003.

I didn't hear that one, but I'm sure you could post a link that I could do so. I did find proof to the contrary from TSN: Not only did he change his mechanics, but his approach. I'll be looking for that ESPN proof. It's going to be tough for Vance to post a link to an XM broadcast. However, I will vouch for Vance on this one, since I heard the same interview. I'd be more willing to believe Carpenter when he says that he didn't change his mechanics than I would an TSN scouting report. Also, I'm not exactly seeing anything in what you posted that suggests he has changed his mechanics. Just his approach. Two completely different things.

I think you're a little off with that last sentence. They are similar in style in that both have OBPs that are highly dependant on their batting averages, and that speed is a large part of their game. Ichiro hits for more home run power, but that's the biggest difference in their style of play. Ichiro is definitely the better player though. No question about that. He's certainly more consistent in that even in the worst year he's posted, he's still productive.

Taking their best years into consideration, I'd give the edge to Gwynn. To be honest this was close for me and what decided it was baserunning. I think my decision is based on the fact that Gwynn's best offensive years came later in his career, when he was a step slower. He was still a very good baserunner, but it tells me that he did it with few hits that he had to "leg out." From 1993-1997, he was the man.

Taking their best years into consideration, I'd give the edge to Gwynn.

I'd be more concerned about how many of his starts the team wins than how many games for which he is credited with a win. Did Nolan Ryan all of a suddenly forget how to win in 1987 when he went 8-16 despite leading the league in ERA? Was Clemens a disappointment with only 13 wins this season, when with even league average run support he probably would have won 20 games?

I'll take the first option everyday and twice on Sundays. What if Lugo cost the Cubs Pie? I wouldn't trade Pie for Lugo. That said, I don't think getting Furcal means having to settle for Encarnacion either. I don't think the D-Rays would ask for Pie. Well, they might, but I think they'd ask for pitching first and possibly Cedeno. They already have several talented young outfielders...two that are under contract for quite some time. You're probably right but I'm sure if Lugo is desired by teams like Atlanta that the price is not going to be cheap. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is that the Cubs necessarily need a SS (I'm not saying you are making that claim). I think Cedeno can handle the job. I think Walker should stay and leadoff. Let Murton bat second and Cedeno eighth. Take the money that the Cubs want to give to Furcal and throw it at an impact outfielder (RF or CF). Whichever outfield position you don't fill via free agent signing, trade to fill the other. If you have to deal Williams to get an OF, then look to get a #4 or #5 starter somewhere. One of the outfielders should be a left-handed bat. Of course, that's all easier said than done.

I wouldn't give him up for Pierre. I would consider dealing him for Dunn, provided that the Cubs aren't required to take back dead weight in the form of Eric Milton and his bloated contract (or someone similar). Pierre is ok, but his OBP is highly dependant on his batting average. If he only hits .280, he's not getting on base enough for his speed to be a factor. Pierre also has no power whatsoever. If he can't be acquired without Pie, then he shouldn't be acquired at all. Yes, Pie does need to work on his plate discipline. However, the numbers he put up at AA this year, especially considering his age, were impressive. I believe he could use another full season in the minors though to work on things like his defense, his baserunning, and most importantly, his plate discipline.

There are several better options for this team than Encarnacion.

I'll take the first option everyday and twice on Sundays. What if Lugo cost the Cubs Pie? I wouldn't trade Pie for Lugo. That said, I don't think getting Furcal means having to settle for Encarnacion either. I don't think the D-Rays would ask for Pie. Well, they might, but I think they'd ask for pitching first and possibly Cedeno. They already have several talented young outfielders...two that are under contract for quite some time.

I'll take the first option everyday and twice on Sundays.

Both are capable of hitting up to 15 homers. Both are capable of stealing 30+ bases. Both will most likely put up an OBP of around .340 or higher. They are very similar defensively, although Furcal has the better arm. Both have had some off-field problems in the past. The only real differences are that Lugo is a couple years older, costs less salary wise, and would require the Cubs to part with a prospect or two to get. Lugo is less likely to hit 15 HR. He hit 13 HR the last 2 years combined with 1197 ABs. Lugo has only ever put up high SB totals in one year - this past. Lugo has less range and a weaker arm. Furcal is the better player and is right at the age for peak production 27/28 breakout. Moving out of TB into a different ballpark and different lineup, I think Lugo is capable of 10-15 homers again. Lugo has three seasons of over 20 stolen bases in his career. He's capable of it and just needs a manager that will let him run. Outside of Furcal's cannon of an arm, there isn't as big of a difference defensively. Furcal may have slightly better range, but he has been a bit erratic in the field in the past (2005 notwithstanding). They are similar players. I do agree that Furcal is at an age where he could be expected to take it to the next level. Of course, he could level off, too. I'm not really advocating one over the other. Furcal will cost more money, whereas Lugo will cost prospects.