CubColtPacer

Ok, I'll give you a team of 8 Omar Visquel's production of this year (.374 OBP) and I'll take 8 Ryan Howards (.344 OBP). My team will score many more runs then your team will over a season. While my team gets on base at a .3 less clip, it will usually take only 1 or 2 hits to drive runners home, while it takes your hitters normally at least 3 hits in order to get your runners home. Since you have a less than 1 in 2 chance of getting on base with each runner, the most likely result of each inning will be for you to get 1 or 2 hits and no runs. We will be more likely to get 1 hit then 2, but my team will hit many solo home runs and 2 run homers and outscore your team. Now, would I want either of these teams? No-because there should be a balance of high OBP hitters and great power hitters, no matter how you can get them. Mathematically, does slugging matter as much as OBP? Yes-that's why OPS is the true measure of run production, because it combines OBP and slugging equally. If you look at the correlation between runs scored and OBP or slugging, slugging matches up just as well with runs as OBP does. So why is it assumed that OBP is the more important of the two stats, instead of giving each their equal place?

Double and a triple. That's enough power for me from Theriot. As much as I'd like Theriot to play, if Neifi had hit that ball, the triple would be called what it actually was-a routine fly ball that the right fielder lost in the sun. Let's give him credit where credit is due-he played a very good game, with a double and a stolen base, and that's certainly good enough for me.

Well, sort of 2 extra base hits. The triple was just the medium fly ball that the right fielder couldn't see-nice to see Theriot going full speed though in case it dropped in order for him to get all the way to third, and it was still a very nice game for him. The whole team was also incredibly patient today with Glavine, which is always nice to see against someone who likes to nibble like he does.

It will be Dustys fault for not playing Barrett and Cedeno. The Valentin brothers are terrible human beings. At this point, I don't think Cedeno being out of the lineup hurts the Cubs. Although I do want to see him play everyday still so he can improve. you think neifi does more in a lineup than cedeno? i wonder if baker is sitting him because of the botched dp yesterday... Against lefties...? Yes, Neifi doe a lot more against lefties. Cedeno barely does more overall, and Neifi is average against lefties, while Cedeno is horrible against them.

No runs, but that was definitely a quality inning otherwise. Hard hit balls, patience, moving runners up-if we can keep doing that, the runs will come.

I wanted that to be true, and so I went back and looked at the reply several times-unfortunately, Nady made contact with the bag, as he was sliding by he reached out and barely touched the bag, you can see his hand reaching out and then changing angles slightly because it hit the bag-but just the very end of his fingers. Still, though, that was out there enough to definitely be questionable, but he did hit the bag.

Did Steve Stone just say that nobody has ever come back from a lead like the Mets have this season? They are 12 games ahead-haven't there been at least 2 or 3 instances where teams have come back from those kinds of deficits in August?

Exactly. That is why I'm fine with Lee, Barrett, Ramirez, and Jones if he can keep his level of production somewhere near where it is currently. Pierre if he can continue his recent trend I can live with (someone posted that his numbers are dramatically after the ASB career wise anyway?). Cedeno has been a black hole on offense. Murton had a minor problem of being too patient, and the coaching staff took a sledgehammer to what was a minor problem, and now he seems to have a major problem with being too agressive. We have our middle of the order hitters that can get our big hits that we don't necessarily need our high OBP's from. Now we just need the players around them to get on base at a high clip (the middle infield, left and center field). Do I think Piurre can make do with a slightly lower OBP because of all the problems he causes on the bases? Yes-now we just need to see if he can continue his hot bat so that his OBP will only be slightly to moderately less instead of at the level it is now.

Well, you're drawing a lot of conclusions based on 3 months of baseball. Especially given the guys chosen (an aging Helton, Lee and Sanchez having career years, Abreu on the wrong side of 30, Dunn & Howard just hitting prime). Lee is a career .850ish OPS guy. Solid, but nothing to write home about. Dunn had a down first half, but his career OBP near .390 and high SLG make him my #3 hitter. Lower than that wastes his ability to get on base (unless you're sitting on 2005 Derrek Lee or another power hitter w/ a .400 OBP). Helton hasn't shown much pop in the first half, but he gets on at a .425 clip overall. Again, the great swings from month to month are a concern, as are his declining #s. I don't think Sanchez keeps this up, though his ability to play almost anywhere makes him a great pick if you knew these #s were coming. Howard's a solid option and only 26, but of the guys listed, a .340 OBP ain't great, even w/ all that power. I'd certainly take him if 1B were open for us, but I'd hope the OBP goes up. Well, yes, my list was based on whose stats I would take if I had to take those stats from the first 3 months and translate it to my team. So if you had to take those similar players in OPS and you could have had their entire first half on your team, which one would you say would be having the best season so far? It's just an exercise to see what type of hitter people actually want. So I don't necessarily think that players like Lee or Sanchez will keep their current pace up, but for this I don't need to.

Ok, let me ask you and everyone this then. If that is true, let me give you 6 hitters here. They are all very similar in OPS (within 11 points of each other). Please rank the hitters that you would like to have in order (just for hitting). This would only be for the rest of the season, so for now the future doesn't matter. These will be ranked by me in alphebetical order. Bobby Abreu Adam Dunn Todd Helton Ryan Howard Carlos Lee Freddy Sanchez This will be fun! I'd rank them: Abreu, Dunn, Howard, C-Lee, Helton, Sanchez. But that's taking into account my beliefs about how these guys will finish the year. Helton circa 2004, if he played all his games at Coors, would probably be the #1 pick but he's a shell of his former self this year. Why Helton so low? .530/.320/.480/.340 - his OBPs by month so far (rounded). If he can keep up a solid .425 - great, but if he's a .320, um, no thanks. CLee has only been close to these stats once before and I'm still not sure he can keep it up. I think Sanchez is in for a fall, but he's only 28 so maybe he's a late bloomer. If Sanchez can really keep it up, I'd take him after Abreu. If you told me they'd put up these numbers on April 1 and asked me to pick, I'd go: Abreu, Helton, Sanchez, Dunn, Lee, Howard. Well, I applaud you for sticking to your guns with your second list, as it follows OBP list exactly. I'll provide my list as well if I had to pick the player who's stats so far this season would be most benificial for my team. 1)Freddy Sanchez-He has the highest BA, the 3rd best OBP, and the 4th best slugging. I would love his combination here, and I think his first half is a perfect #2 hitter. If you have a leadoff hitter who gets on a lot, Sanchez drives him in with his 29 doubles so far, and advances him to 3rd a great deal with his .358 batting average. If the first hitter does not get on, his .396 OBP means he will get on in front of the cleanup guys, and also his great number of doubles mean that one hit behind him will knock him in instead of two. 2) Bobby Abreu-With his power falling off this first half, Abreu is still a wonderful #2 hitter. He has drilled lefties and been pretty good against right handers this season. At this spot, I cannot ignore his OBP along with his good speed that will allow him to score from first on a double from one of my power guys behind him. 3) Carlos Lee-Lee posts a slugging percentage that is almost 100 points ahead of Abreu's. He hits for a higher average and OBP than Ryan Howard while almost matching his slugging percentage. Lee looks to be a prodotypical #4 hitter. 4)Ryan Howard-His batting average and OBP are a bit low, but his slugging makes up for it. He is a great 4 or 5 hitter-he has the capability of driving in runs from anywhere. I'd put him at #4 for all the opportunities he will get to have a runner on first and 2 outs, which is a very likely situation. 5) Adam Dunn-the man without a spot. Dunn has a relatively high OBP coupled with a relatively high slugging. I question though how that translates into games because Dunn does not fit anywhere in the order. In the 2 spot, his home runs are wasted. In the 5 spot where he currently bats, many of Dunn's walks are wasted by the lower third of the order, and some of his walks may be due to teams wanting to go to that part of the order. Dunn does not drive in runs well, nor does he tend to move runners up, which makes him not a great fit for a #3 hitter. Doubles in front of him might as well be singles if he walks or homers, but strikeouts as a #3 hitter could ruin many an inning. Dunn seems best then as a #4 hitter, but it still makes many of his walks not very useful, and his relative lack of speed on the basepaths also makes walking less valuable still (but I'm not saying he shouldn't walk if he can-just that it takes more than most for him to score) Dunn does though possess a balance that many of the other players do not have. 6) Todd Helton- Helton is a singles hitter that is still a good #2 or #3 hitter, but his lack of power or extra base hits and his relative speed on the basepaths make him not quite as good as the other hitters on this list.

I'm not saying that the coaching staff should say..but what about Jones and Barrett? Jones is hitting much better then expected, and Barrett has improved every year since coming to the Cubs. Also, Walker, Murton, and Cedeno have met the expectations of most baseball analysts, and Ramirez met expectations till his tough year this year. That is half the roster this year.

Not necessarily true. If the team hitting .284 is slugging 30 points lower than the team with the .271 avg., they will probably score less runs, so that completely shoots your average argument down, while reinforcing your OPS argument. Bottom line is you want a high OPS, and how you get there is less important than the fact that you get there. Sorry about that..I meant to say that if slugging and other stats were equal either way-sorry about the confusion there. You are right-any way you can get to a high OPS is great-it's just that hits get you there at least twice as fast due to both increasing OBP and slugging. Actually, OBP and SLG aren't equal. If you have 2 guys with a .900 OPS, one with a .350 OBP and one with a .400 OBP, I'd take the latter. It's all about not making outs. Now, if the OBP is the same, yes, you'd want the guy with the higher SLG, but as between the two, OBP is more important. Ok, let me ask you and everyone this then. If that is true, let me give you 6 hitters here. They are all very similar in OPS (within 11 points of each other). Please rank the hitters that you would like to have in order (just for hitting). This would only be for the rest of the season, so for now the future doesn't matter. These will be ranked by me in alphebetical order. Bobby Abreu Adam Dunn Todd Helton Ryan Howard Carlos Lee Freddy Sanchez

Unless that .330 OBP guy has a huge power advantage over the .360 OBP guy, there's no way he's better for your ballclub. You can talk all you want about guys who hit instead of walk, but the fact is you need guys who get on base, no matter how they do it, and you'd preferably take the guys who both hit and walk. Taking a guy who hits a little more but walks a lot less, just does not make any sense whatsoever. There aren't many players out there who primarily walk well, whatever that means. Guys either get on base or they don't. It's simple, you want the guys who get on base. Let me give you a closer example then, we have Morgan Ensberg and Matt Holliday of Colorado. Ensberg is batting .237 with a .390 OBP Holliday is batting .337 with a .387 OBP Ensberg has 19 HR with 44 RBI's Holliday has 16 HR with 57 RBI's Who do you take? (disregarding things like park or position-just simple hitting and creating offense for a team) Are these hitters even that close? Let me give you some other numbers-Holliday has a .587 slugging to Ensberg's .500 slugging. Therefore, Holliday's OPS is 84 points higher. Is this because he has more power? No, obviously not. It is no wonder that many of the middle of the order people who have high batting averages have high slugging numbers, power or not. They are hitting the ball into play, getting their slugging up using singles or doubles. To use another example, this is why Freddy Sanchez has a much higher slugging percentage than Bobby Abreu. Abreu gets on base .50 more of the time, but Sanchez has the same .53 edge in slugging, even though he only has 5 home runs, while Abreu has 8. A person with a low average and high OBP will have to have a significant number of home runs to get even close in slugging to a person with a high average and even a much lower OBP, like Abreu and Sanchez. If you just wanted to get on base 1 base at a time, you'd have to have 4 of those in any inning for one run. These middle of the order type of guys need to put the ball into play, to let baserunners advance (2nd to home, 1st to 3rd) and to hit things like doubles to make it much easier to score, which increases your run production.

Not necessarily true. If the team hitting .284 is slugging 30 points lower than the team with the .271 avg., they will probably score less runs, so that completely shoots your average argument down, while reinforcing your OPS argument. Bottom line is you want a high OPS, and how you get there is less important than the fact that you get there. Sorry about that..I meant to say that if slugging and other stats were equal either way-sorry about the confusion there. You are right-any way you can get to a high OPS is great-it's just that hits get you there at least twice as fast due to both increasing OBP and slugging.

Okay, sign Vlad Guerrero the next time he's a free agent. Vlad's IsoD is actually pretty reasonable (.065), strangely enough. The man knows how to take a walk and has a good idea of the strike zone. The only other guys in the league I can think of who fits CCP's description is Jeff Francoeur and Ronny Cedeno...and neither is doing all that well. The other thing is, freakish IsoD guys like Mark Bellhorn, Adam Dunn, and Scott Hatteberg are pretty rare. The majority of guys in baseball fall between those two extremes. The thing is, in order for a guy to make it to the majors and be successful, he has to have selectivity at the plate. Look at Ryan Harvey down in Daytona, who is struggling down there despite being one of the best five tool prospects in the system. Everyone complains about the Ks, which is part of the problem, but the lack of walks has been what kills him. The guy can't recognize and adjust to various pitches, so he often ends up swinging at ones he shouldn't. His average is in the toilet because he has almost no plate discipline to speak of. Guys who accumulate a respectable number of walks in the minors are the ones who tend to climb the ladder and flourish. It shows good pitch recognition skills, meaning they know when to swing and when to keep the bat on their shoulder. A guy can't make it through the minor leagues if he isn't selective; better pitchers will shred him. I can't think of any guess hitters in baseball today who are worth a lick offensively. The other problem worth noting is (and this is true especially in the majors) the vast majority of players tend to stick around their career IsoD and K/BB numbers. Very few guys have been able to change their approach radically enough while in the majors in order to get to that level (Sammy Sosa being one of them). If you pick up a .300/.310 AVG/OBP guy thinking you're going to teach him how to take walks, odds are really good you will end up being disappointed. That would require overhauling his approach and making necessary adjustments to his mentality over the course of a season. Problem is, you have to keep drilling it into the guy's head and make it stick when you're attempting to make a playoff run and need the guy to be a successful contributor. He already has a number of habits and hitting philosophies in branded into his psyche...and now you're trying to remove them all and replace them with something else. It's possible, but it also would take a lot of work and entail plenty of failure and struggles on the player's behalf. If the guy goes down the tubes trying to implement these new habits, odds are pretty good you'll be shown the door by the end of the season. True, but it doesn't have to go to one of the extremes. I'm just saying that a .275 hitter with a .330 OBP is probably better for your ballclub than a .230 hitter with a .360 OBP, unless that hitter is in the 1 or 2 slot. Now, that's a close choice for me, and I don't know how far I would go, but you need those players to drive in the guys in the first two spots who are high OBP players. I agree with the poster that different slots need to have different functions, and that high OBP players are needed for the first 2 slots no matter how they do it while higher batting average players are needed after that. So I'm not saying that I don't want a player that doesn't walk, but rather that I'd like somebody who primarily hits well rather than primarily walks well. It doesn't nearly have to be as extreme as somebody who never walks like Cedeno.

First, I want to thank you for your respectful disageement. It was very much appreciated. To answer the discussion you brought up, yes, I think average is sometimes a tricky indicator when only given one season to evaluate. I always had the scenario in my head of two free agents that a team is looking at. They likely have at least 3-4 years of experience, so average swings can much more likely be charted. Also, the swings in average are likely to be evened out over a full team. With that, a person who has a .275 career average and a .360 OBP is more valuable to me than a person with a .261 average and .360 OBP because of all the extra things that those hits can cause (other variables are the same on the two hitters). I would even argue that one should take a slightly less OBP to obtain a higher career average, but I am much less confident in that argument because it is impossible to prove where the line should be. I certainly want selective and smart hitters. However, if I can find a person who can simply hit without being selective or smart, and do it well, I value that more. There are many more examples of hitters who were not patient at the beginning of their career who became more patient then examples of players who dramatically improved their averages after their second or third year of playing. If I can get a player who hits well, I think I have won 2/3 of the battle, and then have to only teach them to be more patient at the plate to get the other 1/3. It gives me only 1/3 of the equation to have a hitter like Mark Bellhorn who is very patient, draws many walks, but that has not translated into a spike in his average.

Remember before I say this that I like walks much better than Dusty seems to..but what if I came on the board last Sunday and said see...the Cubs took 0 walks, and scored 15 runs! It looks like they should keep preaching agressiveness. I would be roasted for looking at that one game as evidence, because the 2 stats are not well correlated. So it's silly to look at this game as evidence of the other side, however a help it might have been. except the stats are well correlated (that is obp and runs) Yes, but OBP is not exactly what we are talking about here. Most of the correlation between OBP and runs is inherent in the correlation between batting average and runs. For example..there are 11 teams with over 300 walks this season. 6 are in the top 10 of runs scored, 2 are between 11-20, and 3 of those teams are in the bottom 10 of runs scored. Out of the bottom 5 teams in walks, 1 of them is in the top 10 of runs scored, 2 are in between 11-20, and 2 are in the bottom 10. Also, look at this. The average number of walks by the division of 10 Top 10: 313.2 BB's 2nd 10: 277.2 BB's Last 10: 280.4 BB's Do walks have an affect on runs? Definitely. Does it have as much of an affect as a change in batting average? Not a chance. That's why OPS is such a good stat in evaluating runs for a team. The top 10 teams in OPS are also the top 10 teams in runs scored. That has direct correlation-while walks do not. And remember, it is walks alone we are talking about, since the original posted did not say that we had 9 walks and also had so many hits, which would be the components of OBP. Instead, he singularly wanted the Cubs to walk more, and walks have only a slight to moderate correlation to runs scored. except the stats are well correlated (that is obp and runs) Ok, that's fine. I will say that it is irrelevant to this discussion however, since the original poster was talking about the effect walks have on runs, not overall OBP. When I said that the stats were not well correlated, I was talking about walks as well, so therefore your statement is irrelevant to the current discussion and has no impact on my original statement. The primary reason that OBP and runs are decently well correlated is the difference in batting average (and still not nearly as well correlated as OPS). Differences in walks play a smaller role in run production, which is what I was saying to the original poster. What you are missing, and this is big, I mean really big, is that you cannot take walks out of OBP or OPS. Walks are important. I'm not taking walks out of OBP. What I am doing is separating OBP into the two primary components: batting average, and walks. HBP and a couple other things figure in, but those things are too rare to truly make a significant difference. Now why does OBP correlate decently with runs? Is it because of the batting average part, or the walks? The stats clearly show that differences in batting average are the primary reason why some teams score more runs then others. An increase in walks do cause an increase in runs generally, but this link is much more fragile then differences in batting average. The evidence clearly shows that if you had to have a team that was in the top 10 team in batting average or the top 10 in walks, you would clearly take the top 10 in batting average. Of course, it would be even better to take one of the top 10 teams in OBP, because it takes the large effect of batting average and adds the small effect of walks. Do walks matter? Yes. However, you want the team with a .360 OBP and a .284 average rather then the same team with a .360 OBP and a .271 average. You are going to get many more runs out of the first team than the second team on average, even though the second team walks many more times on average. OPS has such a direct correlation with runs scored because it gives walks it's place while essentially double counting hits-because a hit both adds to your OBP, and also increases your slugging. So a hit is definitely worth a great deal more than a walk, and the OPS numbers show this.

Remember before I say this that I like walks much better than Dusty seems to..but what if I came on the board last Sunday and said see...the Cubs took 0 walks, and scored 15 runs! It looks like they should keep preaching agressiveness. I would be roasted for looking at that one game as evidence, because the 2 stats are not well correlated. So it's silly to look at this game as evidence of the other side, however a help it might have been. except the stats are well correlated (that is obp and runs) Yes, but OBP is not exactly what we are talking about here. Most of the correlation between OBP and runs is inherent in the correlation between batting average and runs. For example..there are 11 teams with over 300 walks this season. 6 are in the top 10 of runs scored, 2 are between 11-20, and 3 of those teams are in the bottom 10 of runs scored. Out of the bottom 5 teams in walks, 1 of them is in the top 10 of runs scored, 2 are in between 11-20, and 2 are in the bottom 10. Also, look at this. The average number of walks by the division of 10 Top 10: 313.2 BB's 2nd 10: 277.2 BB's Last 10: 280.4 BB's Do walks have an affect on runs? Definitely. Does it have as much of an affect as a change in batting average? Not a chance. That's why OPS is such a good stat in evaluating runs for a team. The top 10 teams in OPS are also the top 10 teams in runs scored. That has direct correlation-while walks do not. And remember, it is walks alone we are talking about, since the original posted did not say that we had 9 walks and also had so many hits, which would be the components of OBP. Instead, he singularly wanted the Cubs to walk more, and walks have only a slight to moderate correlation to runs scored. except the stats are well correlated (that is obp and runs) Ok, that's fine. I will say that it is irrelevant to this discussion however, since the original poster was talking about the effect walks have on runs, not overall OBP. When I said that the stats were not well correlated, I was talking about walks as well, so therefore your statement is irrelevant to the current discussion and has no impact on my original statement. The primary reason that OBP and runs are decently well correlated is the difference in batting average (and still not nearly as well correlated as OPS). Differences in walks play a smaller role in run production, which is what I was saying to the original poster.

Remember before I say this that I like walks much better than Dusty seems to..but what if I came on the board last Sunday and said see...the Cubs took 0 walks, and scored 15 runs! It looks like they should keep preaching agressiveness. I would be roasted for looking at that one game as evidence, because the 2 stats are not well correlated. So it's silly to look at this game as evidence of the other side, however a help it might have been. except the stats are well correlated (that is obp and runs) Yes, but OBP is not exactly what we are talking about here. Most of the correlation between OBP and runs is inherent in the correlation between batting average and runs. For example..there are 11 teams with over 300 walks this season. 6 are in the top 10 of runs scored, 2 are between 11-20, and 3 of those teams are in the bottom 10 of runs scored. Out of the bottom 5 teams in walks, 1 of them is in the top 10 of runs scored, 2 are in between 11-20, and 2 are in the bottom 10. Also, look at this. The average number of walks by the division of 10 Top 10: 313.2 BB's 2nd 10: 277.2 BB's Last 10: 280.4 BB's Do walks have an affect on runs? Definitely. Does it have as much of an affect as a change in batting average? Not a chance. That's why OPS is such a good stat in evaluating runs for a team. The top 10 teams in OPS are also the top 10 teams in runs scored. That has direct correlation-while walks do not. And remember, it is walks alone we are talking about, since the original posted did not say that we had 9 walks and also had so many hits, which would be the components of OBP. Instead, he singularly wanted the Cubs to walk more, and walks have only a slight to moderate correlation to runs scored.

Remember before I say this that I like walks much better than Dusty seems to..but what if I came on the board last Sunday and said see...the Cubs took 0 walks, and scored 15 runs! It looks like they should keep preaching agressiveness. I would be roasted for looking at that one game as evidence, because the 2 stats are not well correlated. So it's silly to look at this game as evidence of the other side, however a help it might have been.

But it's not. There are guys who could be worse, and there's no way to tell if he really is THE worst, but it's not hard to support the claim that he is among the worst. The defense that he can't control his playing time doesn't mean a thing. He got the playing time, he negatively affected his teams simply by playing. That's enough to judge the player. Just about any reasonable replacement player would have done better. A spoiled little brat of a kid might not be to blame for the way his parents raised him, but that's not to say you can't criticize the kid's actions. If Neifi didn't play for the Cubs I wouldn't care about how crappy he is. But he does play, and he has hurt the team because he's been so bad. So maybe Macias is worse. But he's not in the game anymore. Augie Ojeda is worse, but he's in the minors. It says something when the few guys that are worse are guys that can't compete at the major league level. As a rule, you can assume that every criticism of Neifi is a criticism of how the Cubs use him and the fact that they even employ him. But the complaints about his play are very real, and very much justified. Ok, here are the players who have roughly comparable stats, or in some cases, significantly worse to Neifi, and play as much as he does or more this year. Jose Guillen Vinny Castilla Kazuo Matsui Geoff Blum Yadear Molina Mike Matheney Reggie Abercrombe Jason Larue Adam Everett Brian Schneider This is just a sample of players who have had comparable production to Neifi. This is also with Dusty's misuse of him. Just against lefties, Neifi is around these players JD Drew Paul Lo Duca Barry Bonds Andruw Jones Chipper Jones Neifi is not even close to the worst player in the league. When not used correctly, he would be one of the 5 worst starters in the majors, although not necessarily the worst. For bench players, he is slightly below average-but his work against lefties would make him a great bench player. Even using his career numbers against lefties make him a pretty good bench player. As far as the comment about .275 average not being decent, if every hitter on the team had a .275 average, they would rank 10th out of 30 teams. So how is a .275 average not decent? Yes, the OBP is low-that is why he is a bench player, just like all the benches around the league.

I bet that Pierre will be ahead of Patterson in 2 of those 3 categories by the end of the season. He is catching up-very fast.

You support the idea of not letting Cedeno hit against lefties and then advocate letting Neifi play a lot next year if Cedeno continues to not hit lefties. Sounds like a plan designed by somebody who wants Neifi to play a lot. Neifi sucks, left handed or right handed. A small portion of his splits against LHP where he was a little better than incompetent is not nearly enough to plan, on purpose, to have Neifi get regular time. There is not justification for giving Neifi playing time. Neifi should only be a last resort. He should never play into preseasons plans as a guy who will be getting regular playing time. He's awful. His presence on this team severely limits the chances for victory, and the more he plays, the lower the chances become. Goony, are you then calling Neifi the worst player in the major leagues? That is certainly the implication of saying that playing a player severly diminishes their chance of victory. Neifi is a fine player for what he should be-a utility player to give players a day off. The people in this thread are showing his career numbers to show that if Neifi is used in this way, and only gives people days off when there is a lefty on the mound, that he is a fine bench player. Let me give you a scenario. I told you I wanted to sign a utility guy for the bench. His primary position is shortstop, a postion where our current shortstop cannot hit lefties. This utility player hits decently against lefties, with a .275 career mark, which is certainly better than our starter. He also is an excellent defender at the position. I want to sign him to only spell this shortstop and occasionally other positions only when they need a day off and only when a lefty is on the mound. Both of these conditions could easily be done. Doesn't this sound like a fine move for the bench? Are you saying you wouldn't take this player? The problem is, people have seen Neifi so misused over the last year and a half that they cannot stand to see him in the lineup at all, even though he does have a limited role that could help a ballclub.

Honestly I don't even care if the Cubs are a top spender. That's not the only way to get it done. I look over at the Cards and they have a much lower payroll, less-than-stellar minor leagues to draw from, yet they're doing pretty darn good year in and year out. How does that work, exactly? I know one thing, it doesn't work if you didn't hire a decent GM. It's really not about the money, if I may toss around a sports cliche'. The Cardinals don't have a significantly lower payroll-their payroll is only 7 million dollars less than ours this year, and that uses Nevin's salary for the Cubs. You are right though, they have made some pretty good moves. Which players though do you think their GM has gotten that have pushed them upward? Players who are at a much better value then the Cubs players?

Ok, like the other people have said, let's take Wood out of it. At the time, it would have been seen as foolish for us to get rid of him-so we can't help if he didn't turn out. So that's 23.6 million for 7 player spots that we would have to fill. What suggestions do you have with 23.6 million to spend? That's maybe 1 star player, a few bench players, and a couple more young guys. So-what options would have given us significantly more production with the money that we had left? Also-let's look at a couple more players on your list. Do you really think Blanco is significantly overpaid or we could have gotten somebody else to back up at the catcher spot? That is simply a position you have to have, and I think Blanco has been what a backup catcher simply is. Finally-Mabry and Miller. Mabry has been slightly disappointing, but do you really think you could have gotten somebody considerably better for that money? Miller also-we can't even evaluate him yet-many people knew that it would probably be after the All Star Break that he would pitch anyway. Let's wait on that 1 million to see if it really is a horrible move. So-what would have been your plan?