Backtobanks

I still don't believe so many posters think the Cubs are going into some kind of rebuilding mode. Byrd is cheap, productive, and certainly won't be traded unless they get an overwhelming haul from some team. I think Ricketts and Hendry are going to see all of the empty seats at Wrigley this month and reload with a team that can contend. As other threads have discussed, mix one part Dunn (or Pena) with a rebound season from Zambrano and Ramirez and possibly another starter, along with some maturity from Castro and Cashner and you're pretty close. It has nothing to do with rebuilding. A lot of people here I think are wondering if we've already seen Byrd's best season as a Cub. Another part of the equation is how far they're willing to go to get Colvin regular PT. That has nothing to do with rebuilding. What I was trying to say was they would need to have some sort of back up plan if Colvin turns out to be not so great next year. If they think Jackson might be ready to replace a struggling Colvin they would be more tempted to sell high on Byrd. You're right though, there's no way they trade Byrd who's said and done all the right things this year. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Byrd's numbers this year are right in line with what he has done consistently for the past 3 seasons, so there's no reason o think there will be a huge drop in production next year.

I know Grabow sucked this year, but it looks like he was injured most of the year. He's a decent reliever assuming he rebounds from this year.

I'm not saying we should go after Butler, but he is only 24 years old so I would imagine his numbers will improve.

I still don't believe so many posters think the Cubs are going into some kind of rebuilding mode. Byrd is cheap, productive, and certainly won't be traded unless they get an overwhelming haul from some team. I think Ricketts and Hendry are going to see all of the empty seats at Wrigley this month and reload with a team that can contend. As other threads have discussed, mix one part Dunn (or Pena) with a rebound season from Zambrano and Ramirez and possibly another starter, along with some maturity from Castro and Cashner and you're pretty close.

Only speculation, but it sounds like Girardi is the favorite, followed by Gonzalez, with Sandberg coming in third.

Of course it didn't help much when they brought in Aramis and Xavier, but at least they didn't bring in Marlon.

Went to yesterday's game and the starting 8 position players were: Micah Blake Starlin Darwin Alphonso Kosuke Tyler Koyie I know names have nothing to do with ability, but you must admit those names don't exactly strike fear in your heart. :lol:

Is Mark Grace really one of the 20 best position players of the 90s?? .310/.385/.449/.835, 122 OPS+, 1754 hits and 364 doubles with 4 gold gloves is a pretty fair decade. He's obviously at the bottom of a top 20 of the decade, but I can't imagine that it would be a travesty or anything that he is there. I totally agree. If you're talking about just hitting and not power hitting because he played 1B, then he belongs in the discussion. Same with players like Gwynn and Ichiro.

but he wasn't a power hitting first baseman, so why penalize him for that? He was in that mold of first baggers like Will Clark and Olerud. Granted they both had a bit more power than Gracie, but they aren't Thome/Big Mac types. Would it have been nicer if he had more power? Hell ya. He still had a damn strong decade though. Also, you need to look at the role a player fills on the team. A 1B without power might be okay if the team is getting power from "non-power" positions (2B, SS, CF, C). The same argument can be made for Tony Gwynn.

Yes you do. Maybe you do, but I don't think I do. It's good to have confidence. You mean that you can't look at each ML roster and pick out their 4-5 best players and their 4-5 worst players without looking up advanced stats. In most cases (not all), you can use observation and the basic stats (BA, OBP, OPS, ERA, etc.) to figure out who the best players are and who are the worst.

Teams deal with more than just the top 100 players in baseball, though, and there's a big difference between a guy like Mike Cameron and a guy like David Eckstein. The advanced stats help to tell you just how big a difference there is, since batting average and other more traditional stats are, at times, misleading. Anybody who needs advanced stats to tell the difference between Mike Cameron and David Eckstein hasn't watched very much baseball.

Yes you do. Maybe you do, but I don't think I do.

I get bored by some of the more advanced statistical debates, but I also feel like looking at some advanced stats has made me much more knowledgeable and helped me to understand the game better. I'm not much of a math person either (I can do it for the most part, I just don't like it), but I enjoy using some stats more than just looking at average and counting stats. As for different people using different stats, that's part of why discussion is good. In many debates I've seen on this board, there wasn't really a "winner" and a "loser." It's much more laying out two points of view and seeing what can be taken from those points of view. I guess my point is that I don't need the advanced stats to figure out who the best (or worst) 100 players in baseball are. As for all the in-between players, it doesn't seem to make much difference to me.

From what I've seen (anecdotal, yes), the large bulk of fans tend to be casual. They root for the team, but don't follow it intensely. They simply either don't care enough to dig into the deeper stats (math isn't exactly a well-loved combo with hanging out watching a game for most people) or don't have the time. So they go largely off reputation, what they hear and which players seem to be trying hard at the times they watch. I don't think it's as much intentionally avoiding stats as it is not feeling that sports is an important enough area to focus large amounts of time pouring over numbers. I'm an avid lifelong (56 years) Cub fan and retired math teacher, but some of the arguments involving advanced statistics bore me to tears and seems to take the enjoyment out of baseball just to prove a point. Also, I've see many heated discussions here in which one poster uses one set of stats to disprove another posters stats on whether a certain player is good or not.

Or an 8 year contract.

Nobody is talking a 5 or 6 year deal. Everything I've seen suggests 3 or 4 years at $10-$12 per year.

Obviously depending on contract, but what would be wrong with that? Especially a 1 year deal which still leaves us a chance to get Gonz/Fielder Why would Konerko sign a one-year-deal after the year he's having? Right. Kind of my point as well. Weird fear to have for us to sign Konerko for 1 year to play first. If anything, it should be the White Sox fear that the season hes having would sucker them into giving him a 4 year extension. As for Dunn, does anyone else agree that if we were to sign Dunn, and Ramirez stays, wed probably be 1 solid starting pitcher and a few respectable relievers(preferably not at Hendry-esqu contracts) away from contention? Dewitt Castro Ramirez Dunn Soto Soriano Byrd Colvin P Looks like a hell of a lineup to me. I agree. I've been posting for a while that this team is not that far removed from contending in the NL Central. A career-average year by DLee, ARam, Zambrano, and Grabow would have made them contenders this year.

I think the Cubs would go after Pena if they don't get Dunn.

As I have often posted, Ricketts needs to put a competitive (maybe not contending, but competitive) team on the field to sell tickets. That's why I have trouble believing Aram or Byrd are going anywhere. Signing Dunn and a decent starter with a rebound season from Zambrano and Grabow makes them competitive enough to sell tickets and possibly contend for the NL Central.

I don't think that would ever happen. I think Sandberg will leave the Cubs if he doesn't get the job, especially if the new manager is young.

Speaking of big bat/no defense (from MLBTR): Uggla Seeking Five Years, $55-60 Million By Tim Dierkes [August 24 at 1:28pm CST] Marlins second baseman Dan Uggla is seeking a five-year extension in the $55-60MM range, reports Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. As Rosenthal notes, such a deal would cover his last arbitration year as well as four free agent seasons. Back on August 7th, Barry Jackson of the Miami Herald suggested the Marlins were willing to do a three-year deal in the $30MM range. Uggla, who switched from Beverly Hills Sports Council to Gaylord Sports Management this summer, said in July that a Marlins extension "would make me a very happy man." He'll certainly have to drop his demands if he's to remain with the Fish beyond the 2011 season. In Uggla's defense, there's no perfect comparable for a second baseman who will have over 150 home runs over his first five seasons and signs one year away from free agency. If Uggla's agent thinks his client is in the discussion with Robinson Cano and Chase Utley, those players will get $14-15MM per free agent year. Brandon Phillips, Aaron Hill, and Ian Kinsler will make less, but all five had less service time than the five years Uggla will and signed contracts covering different portions of their careers.

Madlock hit .313 with an OPS of .815 @ 23 years old, .354 with an OPS of .881 @ 24 years old, and .339 with an OPS of .912 @ 25 years old. Saying he "wasn't horrible" is a bit of an understatement.

If Hendry does it your way, there would be questions and speculation for the rest of the season. Quade as interim gives Hendry a look at a possible replacement as opposed to a lame duck for the rest of the year. Also, making it public now probably helps Trammel find a position for next year.

Keep in mind... It's Phil Rogers. I realize it's Phil Rogers, but after watching the Cubs the past few weeks (and especially today), they need someone to teach them fundamentals that they should have learned in Little League. I do wonder if Hendry has had second thoughts about "not rebuilding" and going with a young manager/teacher would fit with a very young/inexperienced team. Of course, behind all of this could be another motive - money. Signing most of the guys on that list would be a lot cheaper than someone like Valentine.

Rogers in today's Tribune: Unless there's a Joe Girardi Hail Mary at the buzzer, the next Cubs manager isn't going to be a big name like Lou Piniella or Dusty Baker. A source close to the search says the focus is on finding someone who can be a teacher as well as push buttons. Ryne Sandberg's hopes could depend on how well-prepared players such as Darwin Barney, Welington Castillo and Sam Fuld appear down the stretch. … Alan Trammell, Piniella's bench coach, is definitely a teacher. Ditto third base coach Mike Quade and outside possibilities Ted Simmons, Fredi Gonzalez, Eric Wedge, DeMarlo Hale and Gary Varsho. … It looks like the Cubs want a young manager to relate with the young players. So much for "not rebuilding."