noisesquared

This. Rizzo has been extremely young for every league he's played in. Repeating AAA won't hurt him a bit. I'm fine with Rizzo and Jackson playing at AAA for as long as they need to, if it helps their development. I'm just not convinced that Rizzo has much to prove at AAA.

Actually Castro should still be in the minors. He should've played at least full seasons in AA and AAA, before maybe getting a cup of coffee with the ML team this year. You wouldn't want to start that arby/FA clock too soon :roll:

No change is going to be a tough sell to Cubs fandom if by mid May (or sooner) LaHair is proving he's not capable of being an everyday ML 1B, and Rizzo is tearing up AAA(again). While I understand the reasoning behind trying to delay the costs associated with arb and FA, I prefer the management brings the kids up and lets them play when they're ready. I'd rather have Rizzo and Jackson get their ML growing pains over sooner than later. The whole future costs problem is predicated on the players actually coming up and producing. I'm hoping Jackson and Rizzo come up and produce well enough that their future costs are an issue - that's the problem the Cubs should want to have.

Didn't see it elsewhere yet - ESPN reports Cubs and Garza avoid arb, agree to 1yr/$9.5mil contract... http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7536437/chicago-cubs-matt-garza-agree-95-million-deal

I'm still waiting for concrete evidence that we're 'doing a rebuild'. NOTHING has came from Theo/Jed/Ricketts to say that a 'rebuild' is in place. The media also knows nothing - the new regime is so tight lipped it really has to be frustrating the Chicago media, who are not used to the business being ran that way. And not signing Pujols/Wilson/Darvish does not in any way imply to me that the Cubs are rebuilding. The moves the Cubs have made - DeJesus was a nice value sign which would make no sense for a rebuilding team (give that playing time to Jackson or Campana if you're throwing 2012), and Stewart, well someone has to play 3rd next year, and it might as well be a guy with some upside. The Cubs could still sign Fielder, Cespedes, and Kuroda, trade Garza, Byrd, and Marshall for some quality packages, and not only be in good position to compete in the division this year, but in great position for 2013 onward.

Pretty much what I was thinking. I initially thought the Sox would be crazy to entertain this trade, but if they're at all concerned that Dunn may not rebound, this could be a chance to move him for something useful. Soriano as a DH in a hitter friendly park may be appealing to a team like the Sox.

Just an idea - What about Soriano for Dunn? I believe both have 3 yrs left at comparable $. Soriano as DH at the Cell could be productive, and buying low on Dunn seems like the type of move the Cubs need to make. I'm not sure what the consensus is these days on Dunn's miserable 11 season though - was it an isolated instance, or the start of a horrible decline in production?

What part of 17 baserunners allowed in the 6IP since returning from injury indicates this would be a knee-jerk reaction? He's been terrible since coming back. The way Dempster's pitched since coming off the DL, he's lucky he's made it this long without this type of a blowup.

The Frontier League actually has an age limit - 25 or 26, if I remember correctly. I have a cousin who pitched for Windy City after being released from the Cubs organization a few years ago, and went to several games myself. They've got a pretty nice stadium in Crestwood, and the team and league appeared to be pretty well run.

But here's the issue: Is the slice you get off a right-handed bat to rightfield inherently different than the hook you get off a left-handed bat to rightfield? Seems to me that in each instance the bat will impart clockwise sidespin on the ball, causing it to tail toward the foulline. By the same token, both LH and RH hitters impart counterclockwise sidespin on balls they hit to LF. If I'm right about all of this, then there's no differentiating LF from RF on the basis of ball trajectory issues. Conversely, if hooking (pulled) balls behave differently (less tailing action, to be specific) than slicing (opposite field) balls, then your theory's got legs. Just a general observation, but I think everytime a LH batter hits a ball the spin will be counter clockwise, and RH batters will always generate a clockwise spin. A pulled, hard hit would generate less spin, but not a reverse spin. I could be wrong, but I can't picture a situation where a RH batter hits a ball that generates counterclockwise spin.

PLAYER SALARY (US$) 1. Derrek Lee 13,250,000 2. Carlos Zambrano 12,400,000 3. Alfonso Soriano 10,000,000 4. Aramis Ramirez 9,000,000 5. Ted Lilly 6,000,000 6. Jacque Jones 5,633,333 7. Ryan Dempster 5,333,333 8. Jason Marquis 4,750,000 9. Michael Barrett 4,533,333 10. Bob Howry 4,500,000 11. Cesar Izturis 4,250,000 12. Scott Eyre 4,000,000 13. Cliff Floyd 3,000,000 14. Mark DeRosa 2,750,000 15. Henry Blanco 1,775,000 16. Kerry Wood 1,750,000 17. Wade Miller 1,500,000 18. Daryle Ward 1,000,000 19. Will Ohman 900,000 20. Neal Cotts 825,000 21. Michael Wuertz 415,000 22. Matt Murton 415,000 23. Ronny Cedeno 400,000 24. Rich Hill 400,000 25. Ryan Theriot 390,000 26. Angel Guzman 384,000 27. Juan Mateo 383,000 Total Team Salary: 99,936,999 Actually....... it's approcahing $100m !! Actually if you count a certain dl'd minor-league pitcher, the payroll would be over 103 mil, but who's counting :D

Again, it's a pattern: $4.15 to Izturis $4.5 to DeRosa $3.25 to Rusch $2.5 to Blanco It's $14.4 million. It's not the "littlest thing" You're assuming that those four positions on the team would be adequately filled by people making $0. You have to assume that the people there are at least making something. 4 players at an average of $400,000 each, combines to $1.6m. Make one of those guys a millionaire veteran and the total cost is $2.2 million, leaving $12.2 million on the table for somebody, or somebodies, who can actually help the team get better. So you're going with Cedeno, one of the worst hitters in all of baseball, over Izturis next year. And you're going with Theriot, very possibly a one-year wonder, over DeRosa. The same argument could be made that the Cubs are going with Izturis, one of the worst hitters in baseball, and with DeRosa, very possibly a one-year wonder. I'll take my chances w/ Cedeno and Theriot and the extra $7 million over Izturis and DeRosa.

Maybe in your world. Not in the baseball community... The baseball community is second only to politics in taking reputation over substance. Exactly. So even if you assume he has no value actually, he has perceived value, and therefore would be worth something in another trade. He was worth no more than a washed up pitcher this year, not sure how his perceived value has improved. You could get a player for him, but probably just another worthless player. Again, reputation over substance. Maddux was viewed as far more than a washed up pitcher. I'd say Maddux's 6-3 record in 12 starts with LA (with a 3.30ERA/1.08 WHIP) is a little bit more than 'reputation'. That looks like 'substance' to me. Considering Maddux helped LA get to the post-season, I think they got all they hoped to get from Maddux in that deal.

You haven't heard Battery, but are just assuming the Beatles are hands-down the better band without having heard Metallica's best work? Just because the Beatles were great musicians, songwriters, and trendsetters, does not mean that another band could actually come along and be better musicians, songwriters, and equally original.

Not as much as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin... I don't know what your thoughts are, I'm just putting it out there. You must be joking. If Cliff Burton-era Metallica can be called over-rated, than so can the Beatles and Zeppelin. I'll agree 90's and later Metallica is nothing special, but the first Metallica 3 records are as much masterpieces as any Zep or Beatles recordings.

I hate Sting.

Those stats tell me nothing. I don't see how they support your claim that he would have done worse in '05 if he'd played more. Nothing about his '05 stats indicate that he would have been worse if he had had another 150 PAs (esp since he was destroying LHP that year). He was just having a good year last year, for whatever reason. But still, you either aren't understanding the point I'm making or you're just not fully reading my posts. I'm not arguing that someone would take Walker over Soriano ever, even in '05. I'm simply saying Walker was the better player in '05. Soriano has always had more tools and potential (and hype), he's a few years younger, and frankly GMs are enamored with what he does (homers and SBs) and undervalue the things he does poorly (OBP) so they overlook that. But if given the choice to have Soriano or Walker, you'd take Soriano - b/c Soriano has the potential to put up those near-.900 OPS's he had in NY (or to have a career year - like this year). Walker's never been a .900 OPS player. He gets on at a good clip (.350-ish) and he'll give you a little pop most years (he's 34 now, so a rapid decline is not wholly unexpected). No one is saying that at their best, Walker is better than Soriano. We're just saying that in 2005, Walker performed better. Why that's so hard to accept, I don't know. I completely understand your point - I just disagree. My opinion is that Baker 'protects' Walker, be it random or not, and that has caused Walker's Cubs numbers to look good. Yes, Walker had a better OBP and OPS than Soriano in 05. He also did it in 240 less plate appearances. Could Walker have kept those numbers up if he played a full year? Sure, it's possible. But historically the stats say no, he wouldn't have. If the statement is "In 2005, Walker performed better with limited at bats than Soriano did in a full season", I'd have to go along with that.

That is the most hysterical thing I have ever read. According to who? Just ignore the 30 hr vs 10, just ignore the rest of the numbers all you wish, but nobody in the whole baseball world will ever tell you Todd Walker is a better ballplayer than Soriano. Twist your numbers all you wish, but the fact doesn't change-Todd Walker is, has been and will always be a lesser player than Soriano, except maybe in your fantasy league.If Walker is so good at things, why hasn't anyone traded for him when he has been available for almost two years? Hendry overvaluing him, I certainly doubt it. Walker was the better player in '05. I just don't know how to make it any clearer. Walker's .355 OBP and .829 OPS > Soriano's .309 OBP, .821 OPS, and 30/30 year. Todd Walker has had 5 years with at least 581 plate appearances - his OPS in those years: 1998 -.845 (buoyed by a career high .316BA, which he has never come close to duplicating) 1999 - .740 2001 - .814 (buoyed by half a year in Colorado where he posted a .497 SLG; his 2nd half in CIN posted a .418 SLG) 2002 - .785 2003 - .760 This tells me that if Walker was given 600PA in 05, his OPS would likely have been worse than Soriano's. Walker has only put up an OPS over .821 once in his career while playing full-time, and he was 25 when he did it. I do think Walker has been a tremendous value for the Cubs, but he brings nothing special to the table. He gets on base at a respectable clip - but he's nothing special in terms of SLG or tools. Soriano at least gives you corner OF caliber SLG from second base, and has speed to steal bases and take extra bases. Given the choice at any time over the course of their careers, I'd take Soriano over Walker in a heartbeat. Even in 05.

Except Soriano's R/L OPS split was only .060 in '04 and his OPS was .110 better against righties (in other words - reverse split) in '05. If he had sat against RHP in '05, his numbers would have been worse. I'm not saying he would need to sit against all RHP, just the tough ones and ones he has had little success against, like Baker does with Walker. Just glancing at RetroSheet.com, I saw Soriano has sub .200BA/.250OBP against the following pitchers who were in the AL West (with at least 20AB against) - Bartolo Colon, John Lackey, Jarrod Washburn, Joe Kennedy, and Rich Harden. Take those AB away, and I bet Soriano's OBP increases significantly. First of all, if you take away all of Walker's ABs against guys he hasn't done well against, his OBP will increase significantly too. I'm sorry, but that's just an insane argument. You don't get to remove all of Soriano's bad ABs and use that as support for a claim that he's better than Walker. Second, I'm confused by your post. I think you're saying that the list you supplied is a group of RHP against whom Soriano has struggled - so remove them to compensate for Baker sitting Walker against select LHPs. Problem being, 2 of those guys listed are LHPs. So you're really just removing Soriano's stats against a small group of pitchers that he's performed poorly against. Of course his stats are better if you remove 100 bad ABs. That doesn't really prove anything though, does it? Sorry about the LHP thing :oops: I thought I knew my RHP/LHP better than I do. My point is that if Soriano was sat regularly against like handed pitchers like Walker is, his OBP would look better. Or conversely, if Walker was started against tough lefties and pitchers he doesn't hit well, his OBP would drop. Comparing Walkers 430 avg. PA/yr in 04-05 to Soriano's 670 avg. PA/yr in 04-05 isn't comparing apples to apples.

Except Soriano's R/L OPS split was only .060 in '04 and his OPS was .110 better against righties (in other words - reverse split) in '05. If he had sat against RHP in '05, his numbers would have been worse. I'm not saying he would need to sit against all RHP, just the tough ones and ones he has had little success against, like Baker does with Walker. Just glancing at RetroSheet.com, I saw Soriano has sub .200BA/.250OBP against the following pitchers who were in the AL West (with at least 20AB against) - Bartolo Colon, John Lackey, Jarrod Washburn, Joe Kennedy, and Rich Harden. Take those AB away, and I bet Soriano's OBP increases significantly.

In 2004 and 2005, it wasn't his offense either. At the risk of sounding like a "stats geek", Walker was better those years. Soriano's OPS+ was 98 and 110 while Walker was at 105 and 115. You've already conceded the defense, there's proof of the offense. What else is there? Soriano's making $10M because he's been vastly overrated through the years. He can steal bases and hit homeruns and not much else. If Soriano only played about 2/3 of the Ranger's games in 04 and 05 and was sat against tough right handers on a regular basis, maybe his numbers would be a little more impressive. Right or wrong, Walker has been used sparingly against lefties during his run as a Cub, and Walker's career numbers would indicate this has been beneficial to his Cubs numbers. This is a guess based on observation and Dusty's tendencies, but the only lefties Walker gets to face are either lefties Walker has had prior success against, or against lefties with an unimpressive resume. Todd Walker: 2002 vs LHP 158AB .278 .315 .373 2003 vs LHP 158AB .234 .282 .373 2004 vs LHP 41AB .268 .423 .317 2005 vs LHP 91AB .352 .398 .582 2006 vs. Left 86AB .209 .324 .314

Yes. Bleach for the debut album is rather amatuerish. It was in my CD jukebox a couple weeks ago, i hadnt listened to it in years, man its pretty unispriring except for About A Girl. Nevermind is a great album. Incesticide is a cover album that ok. In Utero is overproduced and isnt anything special. Unplugged is great but they are all songs done before except for a few. They have 1 solid album. Now its SOLID, but they have just one. I still lke them more than cream because of this one album. Bleach was recorded for about $200, of course it sounds amateurish. There are only 4 covers on Incesticide. The rest is unreleased recordings. Nevermind didn't sound amateurish enough. Cobain thought it sounded like a Motley Crue record and I totally agree, to my ears it sounds very similar to Dr. Feelgood, which is why I never liked it. And In Utero was, if anything, way underproduced. Nirvana really wanted to get away from the slick Nevermind sound, so they used Steve Albini, who is known for his stripped down raw recordings, to produce. For my money, this and Bleach are their best albums. Heart Shaped Box, Blew, Serve the Servants (as songs, not musical ability showoff pieces) >>> White Room, Crossroads, etc.

This has been my toughest vote so far. I'll have to go AC/DC as the Bon Scott stuff is about as good as hard rock gets. I also wouldn't discount AC/DC's influence on 80' and 90's rock and some of the more current garage-band rock.

I think Lars is actually way behind the times as far as drummers go. Anymore drummers are more important to a metal band than guitars or vocals - most of the best newer generation metal - Lamb of God, Shadow's Fall, Mastodon - feature drummers that literally play circles around Lars, or really most any drummer from the 80's metal scene. I would guess the current average metal drummer can play old Metallica in their sleep.

I know it's very immature to say 'I hate this band', or 'this band sucks'. But that's how I feel about the Eagles. Maybe growing up as a metalhead in the 80's jaded me, but the Eagles were always to me the epitome of what was wrong with 70's mainstream rock. Not enough 'rock' - it felt to me that even their edgier stuff wouldn't be too far out of place on adult contemporary radio.