CubColtPacer

I disagree completely. Johnson's production against left-handers is much better than Pie's, which addresses a struggle the Cubs have had for years. Pie's overall numbers also look better if it's not being brought way down by all those left-handers, which makes the Cubs less likely to replace him and gives him a better chance to get a fair shot. I don't like the idea of a platoon partner for Pie. Letting him play only against LHers is not giving him a fair shot. The Cubs have to let him play. This is the same tired old story year after god forsaken year with the Cubs. Wait . . . you mean RHers, right?? And since that's the majority of pitchers, I'd say that IS a fair shot for Pie. Rest him against LHers (that he's going to do poorly against anyway)and put him in positions that he may well excel in . . . Yea I meant RHers. Thanks for the clarification. A platoon is not a good idea for the development of young player aside from it being a terrible waste of assets. How is Pie going to get better if he never (or rarely) faces LH pitching? They might as well trade him while his value is high b/c once he get the "platoon" label he will fetch pennies on the dollar. There are several LH hitters who continually are in platoons. Curtis Granderson got sat down by Detroit against about half the left-handers they faced last year. Brad Hawpe was benched against over half of the left-handers Colorado faced. There are many, many more with significant splits...productive players who get platooned. Pie isn't likely to become a decent option against left-handed pitching. It's certainly possible, but he's very likely to become the latest left-hander in the major leagues who has a huge split difference. Give him half the bats against left-handers. If he suddenly becomes much better, give him more. He has a much better chance of succeeding in this league if he doesn't play against most of the left-handers, and he can still be a very productive player starting 135 games as Granderson and Hawpe do. And that's a bunch of bs. It's a sample size issue that old-timey baseball minds can't get there brain around. Huh? What's the sample size issue? I made a lot of statements in there. Which one was based on a bad sample size?

No, that's not the only thing that let it not go on for long. They didn't like doing it. Agreed, they certainly didn't like it. But they didn't complain everyday about it like they did with the 11 pitcher thing. The Cubs did it from the 5th of May until the 15th of May. On the 15th, they brought up an IF and sent down the 12th pitcher. 3 days later, they were already ready to bring the 12th pitcher back up, and they sent down the 2nd IF. On June 3rd, they DL'd Ward and brought up Pie. So at that point they only had 1 backup for any of the 4 IF positions, and they had 3 backup OF's. Floyd went on the bereavement list on the 8th, and they weren't going to replace him until Aramis got hurt on the 10th. That moved DeRosa to 3rd and Fontenot came up to play 2nd. So there was still only 1 backup IF. When Ramirez came back on June 22nd, they had 2 backup IF's again and only 11 pitchers. Lou complained about it every single day until the All-Star Break and promised they would rectify it soon. One main reason that they kept the 2nd IF at this time was because Aramis was getting regular rest and was never sure to play the next day. By July 20th, they had gone back to 1 IF again. They traded Izturis and Jake Fox was selected to replace him. So now they're down to 1 middle IF again. The only reason this didn't last long? Ward gets hurt later that day and goes on the D.L. By the time Ward comes back, Pagan is on the D.L. Even with that, Cedeno only remained on the roster until Monroe is acquired, and then the Cubs went down to 1 backup IF again until rosters expanded. The Cubs may not have liked it, but they were certainly willing to do it. They did it in May and June. When Ramirez was gimpy, they brought up the 2nd IF as insurance. When he was a little less gimpy in July, they traded Izturis and went back down to 1 where they likely would have stayed at a while if Ward doesn't immediately get hurt. By the time Ward comes back and makes the bench situation complicated again, Pagan is gone and allows the 2nd IF to stay, and even then they decided they'd have yet another platoon OF rather than the 2nd IF when they traded for Monroe. Whenever push comes to shove, the Cubs have shown that they are willing to get rid of their 2nd IF before they're willing to give up any of their other parts. The biggest indication of that came on July 20th. They trade Izturis, and they had plenty of room to put another infielder on the roster. Instead, they put Jake Fox on the roster, which made their bench Ward/Fox/Pagan/Fontenot/Blanco. If the Cubs valued a limited player like Jake Fox's addition over a 2nd IF, how can it be said they were desperate to add one?

I disagree completely. Johnson's production against left-handers is much better than Pie's, which addresses a struggle the Cubs have had for years. Pie's overall numbers also look better if it's not being brought way down by all those left-handers, which makes the Cubs less likely to replace him and gives him a better chance to get a fair shot. I don't like the idea of a platoon partner for Pie. Letting him play only against LHers is not giving him a fair shot. The Cubs have to let him play. This is the same tired old story year after god forsaken year with the Cubs. Wait . . . you mean RHers, right?? And since that's the majority of pitchers, I'd say that IS a fair shot for Pie. Rest him against LHers (that he's going to do poorly against anyway)and put him in positions that he may well excel in . . . Yea I meant RHers. Thanks for the clarification. A platoon is not a good idea for the development of young player aside from it being a terrible waste of assets. How is Pie going to get better if he never (or rarely) faces LH pitching? They might as well trade him while his value is high b/c once he get the "platoon" label he will fetch pennies on the dollar. There are several LH hitters who continually are in platoons. Curtis Granderson got sat down by Detroit against about half the left-handers they faced last year. Brad Hawpe was benched against over half of the left-handers Colorado faced. There are many, many more with significant splits...productive players who get platooned. Pie isn't likely to become a decent option against left-handed pitching. It's certainly possible, but he's very likely to become the latest left-hander in the major leagues who has a huge split difference. Give him half the bats against left-handers. If he suddenly becomes much better, give him more. He has a much better chance of succeeding in this league if he doesn't play against most of the left-handers, and he can still be a very productive player starting 135 games as Granderson and Hawpe do.

I don't see how that is possible. The only way that happens is if they go with 1 backup middle infielder, and I don't see anyway they pull that off. .... With the normal 5-man bench, if one is a catcher and you burn one on a 1B-man (Ward), that leaves you 3 guys to cover infield and outfield. Either it's one outfielder (Johnson covering all three spots, supplemented by Ward or Cedeno), and two infielders (Cedeno and Cintron). Or it's one infielder (Cedeno) and two outfielders (Murton and Johnson). Personally I don't see why going with Cedeno only wouldn't be just fine. When's the last time a team went into a season with 1 backup infielder? When's the last time the Cubs even considered it? It's not going to happen. Cedeno only is impossible because of the "what happens if 2 go down in the same game" question. You can always throw Ward into the OF if need be, or DeRosa, but there's nobody on that roster that can step in at 3rd, SS or 2B if needed. The smart thing to do is not waste a roster spot on a 7th reliever. The Cubs didn't start the season last year with only 1 backup infielder, but they did go with only 1 backup for over a month in May/early June last year, and then again in July for a few days, and then again in August for 10 days. Lou doesn't like it that much, but he's shown that he's willing to do it for quite a while. And it was really for the same situation last year. The Cubs wanted a platoon OF (Pagan) a 4th OF (Murton), Ward, and a backup catcher (Blanco/Hill) on the same roster. That only left 1 IF on the squad. Only injuries to Ward and Pagan made that not go on much longer than it did.

I disagree completely. Johnson's production against left-handers is much better than Pie's, which addresses a struggle the Cubs have had for years. Pie's overall numbers also look better if it's not being brought way down by all those left-handers, which makes the Cubs less likely to replace him and gives him a better chance to get a fair shot.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I am going to mention something along the lines of what is being discussed in this, and many threads......but here goes....why haven't the Cubs talked to the Dodgers about the right handed CF? I mean, the Dodgers have AJ/Pierre/Kemp/Either/Young/Repko in the OF, and I almost positive they wouldn't mind moving one of those OFer. I mean, AJ ain't going anywhere. They can't give Pierre away. They shouldn't trade Kemp, but I believe Either (I know he's a basically an older Felix Pie) could be had (and he would make Pie expandable), and would make landing a RH CF less of a priority. Repko and Young, are decent enough 4th/5th OFers that wouldn't threaten Pie's job, plus I doubt it cost the Cubs a farm to acquire any of the three. So again I am thinking out loud, how come the Cubs haven't had discussion with the Dodgers? How does Ethier help the Cubs situation? He's only a corner outfielder, and the Cubs already have one of those in Murton. Repko would be a better option, although he's basically a worse version of Jay Payton for what the Cubs need him for without the contract. Delwyn Young is a new OF who has never played CF that I can find. So I can see Repko as a cheap alternative, but he's really not ideal at all.

Hmm, well let's see. He would have made 11.3 million this year without this deal. Let's say 15 next year in arbitration. So that essentially makes this a 6 year extension worth 21.26 million per year. That sounds pretty fair. He's definitely a guy with concerns going forward, but he has tremendous production right now and is still young.

The Brewers are one of the best matchups for Dempster. He has significant splits with right and left-handers, and so the Brewers heavily right-handed based lineup gives him a better chance of success. Then again, Lieber is the same way :D.

Sounds good guys. Thanks for the help. I'll post my entire team just to clear up some of the questions you guys had (5x5 league with OBP instead of average) C: Geovany Soto 1B: Travis Hafner 2B: Brian Roberts SS: Jose Reyes 3B: Garrett Atkins OF: Vladimir Guerrero OF: Adam Dunn OF: Brad Hawpe Util: Carlos Pena Util: Jason Bay Bench: Nick Swisher, Orlando Cabrera, Orlando Hudson, Mike Napoli SP: Jake Peavy SP: Chris Young RP: Brandon Lyon RP: George Sherrill P: Rich Hill P: Pedro Martinez P: AJ Burnett Bench: Joe Blanton If you have any other comments that you want to add, I'd greatly appreciate it, about the closers or any other issues you see about my team. Now that I look at it, should I pick up both Wilsons and drop two people?

Are you in a different group than I am? Because I'm tied for dead last in the nsbb group with 19 out of 32. I have not picked 2 8/9 games right in 8 years. This year, I managed to miss all 4 of them. i'm in group # 20875 That's the same group. You're tied for 38th. I'm tied for 50th.

Other guys to keep an eye on are Troy Percival and Brian Wilson. Only thing with Wilson is the Giants won't win many games. I picked up Lyon (Percival and Accardo both got drafted). Is C.J. Wilson or Brian Wilson a better option? Should I pick up either? I've got Blanton as a 6th starting pitcher after Peavy, Young, Hill, Pedro, Burnett in a 1250 IP max league. If I want to pick up a 3rd closer, I'd either have to drop Blanton or my only backup at 2nd or C, Orlando Hudson or Mike Napoli.

this is a poor assessment. Why? Do you not agree that most people's expectations of Hill last year were extremely out of whack? He had a tremendous finish to the 2006 season and I think too many expected him to pick right up from that point. In April he was very good. In May-June he was average. In July-August he was slightly above average. In September he was slightly below average. In his defense it was his first year as a full time starter at the ML level, he should improve. I just believe that his ceiling is a solid #3 guy. He needs to develop another pitch to go along with his curveball. When he doesn't have his curveball he has nothing else to rely on. His fastball isn't strong enough to get by when he doesn't have his curveball. He was toying with a changeup last year, I hope that is something that has improved this year. A changeup can be tremendously effective even if it is just average. I haven't been on the Hill train either, but his ceiling is going to have a hard time being a solid #3 guy when he was a solid #2 last year.

Are you in a different group than I am? Because I'm tied for dead last in the nsbb group with 19 out of 32. I have not picked 2 8/9 games right in 8 years. This year, I managed to miss all 4 of them.

Not really. Lou already said there's no room for him on the team without a trade. The bullpen is going to be: Marmol, Howry, Wood, Wuertz, Eyre, Hart, and the loser of Lieber/Dempster/Marquis. If one of those starters get traded, then maybe Pignatiello or Lahey would get a shot.

Yeah, I don't mind this loss for Indiana. They didn't play particularly badly (although not great) but Arkansas played their A game tonight.

I'd call it a 70% chance that Gordon has surgery in the next month.

The first year that DeRosa was only used as an emergency guy at SS was last year.

Ditto, only I have Arizona instead of WVU. I've seen several and this definitely isn't his typical game. I assumed that hopefully they get past this game and he has one of his stronger games against Wisconsin because I picked them to go the sweet 16 then losing to Georgetown. . Same. I don't think Wisconsin has the talent to overcome someone like Beasley. The Badgers might make a game with USC, but at the rate things are going for the Trojans, I'm back and forth on it. OJ Mayo could kill the Badgers. Might make it a game against USC? You think a higher seeded team coached by Bo Ryan is going to lose to a lower seeded team coached by Frank Martin? I don't think you understand what Wisconsin is. Yeah, that's a strange statement. Wisconsin is not as flashy, but is monumentally better than USC or KState. If either beats Wisconsin, it'll likely be one of the top upsets of the tournament. I think KState would matchup pretty well vs. Wisconsin. If Wisconsin has to score 70 points I would think they would be in trouble. Yes, if the scoring gets that high, Wisconsin could be in trouble. Problem is, only Duke, Marquette and Purdue (Wisky's kryptonite) have scored more than 66 points against the Badgers this year. Getting it to the 70's is much, much easier said than done. On paper, I think K-State matches up well with Wisconsin. In actuality, when coaching and discipline are factored in, I think K-State is the kind of team Wisconsin is likely to feast on (slowly, of course, but surely). The Walker-Beasley duo is maybe the best in the nation. I dont see any Big 10 team that features the offense that KState has. If they can slow one of those down, I think Wis. wins very easily. Purdue may be the one team that closely resembles Kstate and Wisconsin lost both games to them. Purdue is not anything like K-State at all. No big man, balanced scoring, good defense for Purdue. If you're going to compare K-State to any of the teams in the Big 10, it would be Indiana. 2 big scorers leading the way including one of the best big men in the country. K-State averages 78.7 points per game, Indiana 75.1. Indiana shoots 46.3% from the field while K-State shoots 44.3% from the field. Both teams are athletic, undisciplined, and inconsistent. That doesn't mean Wisconsin will have a big advantage. IU had one of the two games against Wisconsin won before a banked in 3 with 4 seconds left. K-State isn't unlike teams Wisconsin has faced before though. I want to get credit for the Indiana comp, I clearly said it 5 minutes earlier. You can have credit from me, it just took me that long to look up those stats and phrase my response correctly. After I posted it, I looked back and saw your comment. Of course, the only reason you got in first was because I took the time to back mine up :D.

Ditto, only I have Arizona instead of WVU. I've seen several and this definitely isn't his typical game. I assumed that hopefully they get past this game and he has one of his stronger games against Wisconsin because I picked them to go the sweet 16 then losing to Georgetown. . Same. I don't think Wisconsin has the talent to overcome someone like Beasley. The Badgers might make a game with USC, but at the rate things are going for the Trojans, I'm back and forth on it. OJ Mayo could kill the Badgers. Might make it a game against USC? You think a higher seeded team coached by Bo Ryan is going to lose to a lower seeded team coached by Frank Martin? I don't think you understand what Wisconsin is. Yeah, that's a strange statement. Wisconsin is not as flashy, but is monumentally better than USC or KState. If either beats Wisconsin, it'll likely be one of the top upsets of the tournament. I think KState would matchup pretty well vs. Wisconsin. If Wisconsin has to score 70 points I would think they would be in trouble. Yes, if the scoring gets that high, Wisconsin could be in trouble. Problem is, only Duke, Marquette and Purdue (Wisky's kryptonite) have scored more than 66 points against the Badgers this year. Getting it to the 70's is much, much easier said than done. On paper, I think K-State matches up well with Wisconsin. In actuality, when coaching and discipline are factored in, I think K-State is the kind of team Wisconsin is likely to feast on (slowly, of course, but surely). The Walker-Beasley duo is maybe the best in the nation. I dont see any Big 10 team that features the offense that KState has. If they can slow one of those down, I think Wis. wins very easily. Purdue may be the one team that closely resembles Kstate and Wisconsin lost both games to them. Purdue is not anything like K-State at all. No big man, balanced scoring, good defense for Purdue. If you're going to compare K-State to any of the teams in the Big 10, it would be Indiana. 2 big scorers leading the way including one of the best big men in the country. K-State averages 78.7 points per game, Indiana 75.1. Indiana shoots 46.3% from the field while K-State shoots 44.3% from the field. Both teams are athletic, undisciplined, and inconsistent. That doesn't mean Wisconsin will have a big advantage. IU had one of the two games against Wisconsin won before a banked in 3 with 4 seconds left. K-State isn't unlike teams Wisconsin has faced before though.

I like. Is it that much less nasty with Piggy or Lahey instead of Marte? Or with Leiber in long relief and Hart in short relief? Especially when whoever gets the final pen spot will be basically the 25th man on the roster? Is it that much less nasty to pay more in money and prospects to upgrade it? That's the same point people make for not making the Roberts' trade. Getting Marte makes a good bullpen better. Of course, everything depends on cost. It's completely different. You are talking about getting better for 1 inning at a time, 70 games a year. With Roberts you are getting a 9-inning/ 150 game per year player. It's completely the same. You take a good situation and upgrade it to make it better. That 1 inning at a time, 70 games a year possibly could make a swing of 8-10 wins depending on the situation. I could argue the VORP of Roberts over DeRosa is less than the VORP of Marte over Pignatello or Cotts. I repeat, you make a good situation better in either case. Except in the bullpen situation, managers choose specifically what innings can go to which pitchers. Marmol, Howry, Wood, Wuertz, and Eyre can take all the significant innings. The other 2 bullpen spots just need to eat innings where the Cubs are up by more than 4 runs, the Cubs are down by more than 2, or the starter has gone out early. In essence, if you acquire Marte all that you are doing is wasting Wuertz by pushing him into throwing those insignificant innings. Is it really at all important to acquire another pitcher just to throw in those situations where the game is basically over anyway? Do you really want Eyrehead as the lone lefty in the bullpen? If the right-handers had bad splits against left-handers, then I would be worried. Howry, Wood, and Wuertz are all good against left-handers though.

That looked like traveling on Duke, but it didn't end up mattering since he missed the shot.

I wouldn't be completely sure about that. There's plenty of history of teams who have struggled with high seeds early and then gone on to do quite well in the tournament.

At halftime, it was tied at 29. In the second half, Washington State has outscored Winthrop 33-5. Ouch.

Thanks for the link. Looks like I have Brandon Lyon and C.J. Wilson available.

I like. Is it that much less nasty with Piggy or Lahey instead of Marte? Or with Leiber in long relief and Hart in short relief? Especially when whoever gets the final pen spot will be basically the 25th man on the roster? Is it that much less nasty to pay more in money and prospects to upgrade it? That's the same point people make for not making the Roberts' trade. Getting Marte makes a good bullpen better. Of course, everything depends on cost. It's completely different. You are talking about getting better for 1 inning at a time, 70 games a year. With Roberts you are getting a 9-inning/ 150 game per year player. It's completely the same. You take a good situation and upgrade it to make it better. That 1 inning at a time, 70 games a year possibly could make a swing of 8-10 wins depending on the situation. I could argue the VORP of Roberts over DeRosa is less than the VORP of Marte over Pignatello or Cotts. I repeat, you make a good situation better in either case. Except in the bullpen situation, managers choose specifically what innings can go to which pitchers. Marmol, Howry, Wood, Wuertz, and Eyre can take all the significant innings. The other 2 bullpen spots just need to eat innings where the Cubs are up by more than 4 runs, the Cubs are down by more than 2, or the starter has gone out early. In essence, if you acquire Marte all that you are doing is wasting Wuertz by pushing him into throwing those insignificant innings. Is it really at all important to acquire another pitcher just to throw in those situations where the game is basically over anyway?