CubColtPacer

That's pretty much the best lineup we can put out today.

It's possible if these people take this overall contribution rule seriously. Neither his playing career nor his managerial career are HOF worthy, but considered together he has a chance. I think he'd have to go somewhere else and have sucess for 5 years or so (including a WS somewhere) to have a good shot at it.

I disagree that he hasn't done anything to show he'd be able to start. His 2005 happened. You can't just ignore it. He was great in AAA, at 22, and solid in the majors, again, at 22. He's been disappointing this year. But anybody who thought it was going to be a straight line upward just wasn't being realistic. This is why I was so dead set against going into this season with the lineup as weak as it was and Murton and Cedeno starting together. You had to expect struggles. The odds are in his favor for improving over the next couple of years. Cesar Izturis had a 52 and 61 OPS+ at 22 and 23. Everybody seems to be willing to pencil him in as starter but unwilling to give Ronny a shot. This makes no sense to me. I'd much rather go with Cedeno than Izturis. Neither is going to be all that good next year, but one does it for next to nothing. I think most people, including me, would be fine with trading Izturis and playing Cedeno at short next year. If they are both on the roster though and you are paying Izturis the money anyway, then he is still the better player of the two and should start. Their difference in production is not worth the difference in money right now, but there is a difference-and probably would be still a small difference even if Cedeno improved a small bit next year.

I think we'll be seeing a lot of Freddie Bynum at 2nd base! It's funny how Baker wouldn't play Walker at 3rd because it's too hard to move across the diamond but he'll move Cedeno back to SS so he can play a garbage favorite. On the positive side, Bynum might play his way off the roster. I don't understand what this means-who do you want to play in the middle infield? I expect most of the time it will be Cedeno and Theriot, but if Dusty wanted to, it would be just as likely to put Bynum at short and Cedeno at second as the other way around. Cedeno moving has nothing to do with Bynum-Cedeno is just the best shortstop we have with Izturis out.

I expect him to be as crappy in 2007 as he has been in 2005 and 2006. I'm not saying he will be much better..I just think he will improve his numbers about the same amount from 06 to 07 as from 05 to 06-unless he falls off significantly from his current pace, .335+ is probably his final number this year, and so expecting a .345 next year is not that unreasonable, I don't think. Having Pierre at the top of the order with a .345 is far from ideal-but it won't kill your offense either.

The Cubs aren't going to get any comp picks for Pierre. Do you mean because they are going to re-sign him, or because they won't offer him arbitration? They will resign him. I do too..I hope they offer him arbitration. If he declines, pick up the picks. If he accepts, sign him to a 1 year deal-I don't consider this that big of a problem, for I firmly believe Pierre will play better next year than he did this year (I think he'll have some up months and down months, but I don't think the down months will be as bad next year). I'm predicting a .345 OBP for him next year-which will be about 10 points better than the .335 I expect him to finish around this year. It won't be great, but it won't be a huge problem for one year. However, I want him only to be a placeholder for Pie in 08, and would be more upset if they signed Pierre to a multiyear deal-especially if it's 3 years or more.

The Cubs aren't going to get any comp picks for Pierre. Do you mean because they are going to re-sign him, or because they won't offer him arbitration?

Chicago's not hot all year though-in fact, it is quite cold for a decent part of the season. Here is a Dusty quote also about the same subject: "What I meant is that blacks and Latins take the heat better than most whites, and whites take the cold better than most blacks and Latins. That's it, pure and simple. Nothing deeper than that." Was it smart to say? No-but if it is your contention that he is racist against whites for saying they don't take the heat as well, then he is racist towards blacks and Latins for saying they don't take the cold as well. So he is not saying one race is better than another, just that they react differently to different situations. Here is the source for that quote. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cubs/2003-07-07-baker_x.htm

That stat line cannot be right. He doesn't have an OBP above .300. Yeah, I was confused by that for a minute also..and then realized he was putting it down as OBP/SLG/OPS.

I agree he would be a good pickup for the Phillies, but I just can't see them making a deal to increase payroll right now-they forced the Yankees to take Lidle, who is also a FA at the end of the season and makes less than Pierre-so I doubt they are suddenly going to try to pick up some more payroll, even if it is only for a month and a half.

Controversial, yes, but racist? The evidence isn't there. If one is racist and in the league for as long as Dusty has, shouldn't he have a string of incriminating incidents and quotes by now? Do you want to really pretend to know what's in his heart? I'm sorry but when you say "He honestly believes black people are quicker and better in heat, and therefore better at baseball", that's pure conjecture. You have nothing to back it up. Say what you will about Dusty's managerial skills and I'll most certainly agree with you: he's not a good game manager. But let's stop with the racism crap. Dusty's quotes are on about the same level as Al Campanis a few ago whom was promptly labeled a racist and fired. Al Campanis said: Dusty Baker said: CNN Transcripts: CNN Transcripts The thing is, he doesn't say anything about how each type of player plays in the heat. He doesn't say that the darker your skin is, the more likely you are to play baseball well in the heat. He only said that darker skinned people might be able to accomodate heat better. Was it smart of him to say? Probably not. At the same time, he practically said the same thing the other way when he was talking about being from those Northern cold states. The inference is that lighter skinned players would be more accomodating to cold weather. Is it true? It's impossible to tell-we do know that the lighter your skin, the more likely you are to have harmful effects of the sun-but I cannot think of a single way to prove conclusively one way or the other Dusty's claims other than anecdotal evidence. Even if it is true though, it has no discernable link to what happens on the field. It would be the same thing as somebody coming out and saying that men enjoy the cold more than women do-does that make a person sexist?

And the money to pay for Rusch in 2007. Let's keep the faith! Doesn't matter, all another team has to do is put in a claim on Rusch and Hendry doesn't even need to work out a trade, he can just let that team have Rusch, which includes his contract. Just getting rid of him is enough of a return on the trade if you aren't saddled with the contract. True, but I'm sure Rusch already passed through waivers near the beginning of August when Hendry probably put anybody he might want to deal on waivers. Can you pass through waivers while on the DL? :?: I don't think you can go through waivers on the DL, but if he went on waivers immediately in August, he might have passed them already before he went on the DL on the 3rd of August. It's hard to tell though with these things.

I understand about his defense and baserunning (although I think his defense overall has been pretty good-he's been very good at tracking down balls, and absolutely terrible with his arm). However, his numbers this year against right handed pitchers are good-very good. .311/.350/.538 If we could find a platoon partner who could hit lefties that well for 2-3 million, we'd have one of the top 5-6 right fields in the league (Jacque's splits would rank 10th in OBP, 2nd in SLG, and 4th in OPS among qualified right fielders this year). 7-8 million for that production would be a bargain-can we get this high of numbers again for Jones? Probably it will be somewhat lower next year-but it will still be a very productive position with a platoon partner.

And the money to pay for Rusch in 2007. Let's keep the faith! Doesn't matter, all another team has to do is put in a claim on Rusch and Hendry doesn't even need to work out a trade, he can just let that team have Rusch, which includes his contract. Just getting rid of him is enough of a return on the trade if you aren't saddled with the contract. True, but I'm sure Rusch already passed through waivers near the beginning of August when Hendry probably put anybody he might want to deal on waivers.

If we had a platoon partner for him this year and could take away all his at bats against left handed pitching, would you take him?

And Izturis is very similarly OBP challenged. It's not ridiculous, it's quite accurate. Yes but that's not all of my arguement. Please respond to the rest. How many DP has Izturis grounded into this year, how many per year? How often do you see him swinging away when the runner infront of him gets a stellar jump? How many pitches per plate appearance? He sucks offensively right now yes. Is he Neifi? God no. I will tell you before others do that his P/PA is pretty low, but I do agree with you that he is very patient when he gets deeper in the count. Izturis has a pretty good eye for the strike zone-he just doesn't like to take very many strikes, and so will put many pitches into play early in the count. He'll usually look at pitches out of the strike zone though (this is based on the limited look we've seen him so far-it could either be validated or softened as we see him in some more situations, but so far that is my impression) 1. neifi=3.28 P/PA, cesar=3.38 P/PA 2. neifi grounds into a DP every 60 ABs, cesar grounds into one every 64 ABs. 3. neifi strikes out less. the rest of what you said is typical anecdotal evidence given by people who like izturis for some reason, and is the exact reason why you can't trust what your eyes see much of the time in baseball. truly, "he is very patient when he gets deeper in the count" is such a meaningless thought, i doubt even you yourself know what you meant by it. check out #1 and #3, neifi strikes out less and sees roughly the same amount of pitches per PA in his career. I am taking his being patient as he gets deeper in the count from 2 things. First is you're right, I've watched him as he gets deep in the count and he's taken many pitches that were just off the plate. This shows up in the stats to show his higher BB/PA with the Cubs than his P/PA would suggest. That's why even though Neifi's P/PA and Izturis's are very similar, their walk totals with the Cubs are like this: Neifi: 5 BB's in 234 PA's Izturis: 5 BB's in 60 PA's Izturis may not walk a great deal, but he walks more than his pitches per plate appearance would seem to indicate-and I think his approach deep in the count may have something to do with that, just like his approach early in the count means that he won't walk a huge amount.

And Izturis is very similarly OBP challenged. It's not ridiculous, it's quite accurate. Yes but that's not all of my arguement. Please respond to the rest. How many DP has Izturis grounded into this year, how many per year? How often do you see him swinging away when the runner infront of him gets a stellar jump? How many pitches per plate appearance? He sucks offensively right now yes. Is he Neifi? God no. I will tell you before others do that his P/PA is pretty low, but I do agree with you that he is very patient when he gets deeper in the count. Izturis has a pretty good eye for the strike zone-he just doesn't like to take very many strikes, and so will put many pitches into play early in the count. He'll usually look at pitches out of the strike zone though (this is based on the limited look we've seen him so far-it could either be validated or softened as we see him in some more situations, but so far that is my impression)

They said in the article in the next week, and yup, the deadline is August 31st.

Well, it's going to be hard to do..but I sure hope they bring him into the game a few times this week-and hopefully they can bring him into situations where he can succeed and somebody like the Mets will trade for him. I wonder if the note that the Cubs are hoping to trade him actually comes from the organization, and Hendry is actively trying to get rid of him to whoever will take him right now.

I agree that Theriot should be getting the starts that Izturis or Cedeno doesn't get (and I think he will for the most part, but am less sure about that than some other things I've thought Dusty will do) but I disagree that 3 players on the roster capable of playing the middle infield is enough. I think you really need four on a usual basis that can at least slide over to the MI-otherwise it just limits your options way too much on the bench. I'm not sure Bynum is the choice (although I understand why they called him up), but I think they did need to bring up somebody who could play the MI.

By the way, did you notice the first test was passed? Theriot was the first infielder off the bench tonight and not Bynum.

I'd be scared of trading for him unless the Phillies decide they want to cut more payroll. I like him a great deal, but I bet his trading value is higher than his actual value-if he was a free agent though, I'd get him very quickly.

He's already on the 25-man roster. I believe those are relavent even during the offseason, and he won't be on the DL in the off-season. The Cubs can't just give him a non-roster spring training invitation. I don't know how the 25 man roster would be relevant in the offseason-what happens if 5 people end up on the DL at the end of the season? Does that mean 30 people are on the 25 man roster? I think that the 40 man roster is the only one that is needed during the offseason.

I don't see the point in waster 25-man and 40-man roster space on the guy for the off chance that he'll be halfway decent next year. He's been bad most of his career, he was bad last year and he's been awful this year. I don't think it is smart to gamble that he'll be better. Well, if we need the 40 man space, that's one thing. I don't want him on the 25 man roster at all this year, so that's irrelevant-he'd have to earn his way back on to the 25 man roster next year under my plan. He wasn't good last year, but he wasn't that bad-he posted a 4.52 ERA in 2005, admittedly with a high WHIP. So he was at right about league average ERA in 2005-if he could return to that, he'd be fine as a long reliever. The only gamble is the waste of a 40 man spot-if there is a reasonable chance of losing somebody of value because of him, then go ahead and release him-if not, there's not much to lose.

Yeah considering Weaver, Wilson, Choi, Pollite, and many others were DFA'd. I mean I understand Hendry doesn't want to admit he made a bad investment but it's time to own up and cut the guy. He had one career year and the Glendon Rusch we are seeing today is the real Glendon Rusch. The thing is, I'm not sure about a couple of them, but I believe all of those players you mentioned were in their final year-those teams did not have to eat 3 million dollars for next year, and so if the player is not helping them right now, they might as well cut him if he cannot help them before the end of the year. There is a small chance Glendon might actually be a decent reliever next year-let's go through the offseason (he gets no guarantees, he has to make the team fair and square), and if he's not good enough to make the team at the start of next year, then release him.