jersey cubs fan

Or Brian Roberts No, it needs more threads about Felix Pie and more pages dedicated to Brian Roberts, but all in the same thread.

I have a feeling that the bigger money teams feel that as long as a pitcher makes 30 starts a year and somewhere around 180 innings, without getting completely rocked, they won't regret any deal.

That's an oddly and inappropriately sarcastic comment. Since when have people demanded 800 OPS or bust on the bench? He will turn 39 in the middle of next season, and has a major league career line of .283/.336/.391. He's old and he stinks. And he's a pretty good bet to play far more frequently than somebody like him should play. I'm not sure why a .350 OBP in 2007 is noteworthy to some, seems pretty clearly that it's flukey. Any anti-Taguchi sentiment is clearly justified, and not deserving of some overblown nonsensical criticism like you've implied above.

jersey cubs fan, on NSBB.com, is reporting that he's a sad panda.

I have to ask, are you NOT goony? I really thought you were, and if not my appologies to you both... Yeah, I was just making a funny. That was my old screen name. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm not sure how Colvin = average makes Pie = Beltran. That makes no sense. The point was that Pie and Soto are not equally "untouchable" because Soto is far more difficult to replace. Competent catching is going to be harder for this team to find than competent CF play.

When has Goony never complained? :) When has anybody ever been influenced by anything he said?

I heard some guy saying Geoff Jenkins was an obvious roid head this past weekend. Certainly he could be, but I never thought he was a blatant guy, and never heard his name involed in the story before.

The thing about SS is while they are lacking at the major league level, there isn't any decent hope in the minors either. It's Cedeno improves or bust, because Theriot is a bust, and Cedeno could be. SS is a need now, and it's probably going to be a need every year for the foreseeable future, until they go outside the organization to find a real one. I'm all for going to Cedeno, and don't like the idea that Theriot may have been promised the spot. And I don't buy for a second that knowing he's the guy will somehow allow Theriot to prepare physically this offseason to handle 6 months of the job next summer.

anybody think orioles insiders know nsbb is obsessed with what they have to say and just screwing around?

I'm sorry for your loss.

I'm not sure how somebody could interpret this as pimping him as a top 5 player in the league. This is most likely not going to be anything close to the Jacque situation.

Cabrera would probably be no bigger than an upgrade than Roberts would be. If it were just Cabrera vs Theriot and Roberts vs DeRosa, Cabrera would be a little bigger of an upgrade, but adding in the factor of DeRosa taking away 200 AB's or more from Fontenot and Roberts becomes the better upgrade. I would tend to agree. Depends, VORP-wise, the Roberts to DeRo bump is about the same as the Theriot to OCab bump for 2007, but if you look at Roberts and OCab's 2006, and compare them to the Cub's 2007, you'd be much better off with OCab. Looking at a couple different advanced defensive metrics and it appears as though DeRo and Theriot were actually slightly better than Roberts and OCab in 2007. I think your analysis negates the fact that DeRosa would still be here, playing, and likely replacing potentially poor numbers.

He's the quintessential old school local news sports guy. His agent looks like the guy who does all those Bayer commercials and that home improvement show (not Home Improvement, the one that makes my wife cry).

Sammy Sosa was the first thing he said that I understood.

I used the site in the pre-mlb.com days, and listened to the radio broadcasts when they were first offered online for free, but never hit the boards. How long ago were the pre-mlb.com days? I want to say mlb took control around 2000 or 2001. I believe your could listen to games for free online around 1996/97 timeframe, and that lasted a few years. My screen name on the old cubs.com site was 'agrotech', and that was during the 1998 season. I believe it was the '99 season that mlb.com took it over. Could be. Although I believe it happened gradually, as far as how it affected the user. They used to all be independant and very different. The Cubs had one of the better sites, although I think Seattle and Boston were the leaders. I do not believe mlb.com banned the free radio right away either. They took their time to see what they had, and probably to draw in more customers, then laid down the hammer with the charge.

I used the site in the pre-mlb.com days, and listened to the radio broadcasts when they were first offered online for free, but never hit the boards. How long ago were the pre-mlb.com days? I want to say mlb took control around 2000 or 2001. I believe your could listen to games for free online around 1996/97 timeframe, and that lasted a few years.

That may be the main reason for most who are down on him. There's also the issue that he strikes out a ton and doesn't walk much, two very big red flags when evaluating a prospect. So, even if Corey never existed, I'm sure there would be many with doubts. There's also the fact that a certain part of the crowd views all prospects as suspects first and foremost. I think this is one of the big reasons as well. Obviously, the K/BB ratios are alarming, but that's why I pointed out the improvement. Are there any other red flags? Is it his stint in the majors last year? I admit I might have exaggerated the "trading for crap" line, but I still don't understand why people are willing to trade Pie for something good when Soto should be untouchable. Neither of them are easily replaceable long-term. There are some names that can be thrown into the CF mix in the near and intermediate term. Fukudome, Eric Patterson, Tyler Colvin, etc. If Soto gets traded, the Cubs will be left with Blanco and whatever piece of garbage Hendry finds off the scrap heap, and then hope to heck that Donaldson develops quickly. And there are questions about whether he can stick at C in the first place. I think many people believe that while Colvin may have a very limited upside, he's also a safe bet to reach it, and could come in and provide average production very shortly. He's a big reason why some view Pie as more expendable. And there are no questions about his ability to stick at the position.

I used the site in the pre-mlb.com days, and listened to the radio broadcasts when they were first offered online for free, but never hit the boards.

:-k Gah... he's pretty slight, and he slouches and slumps a bit. He carries himself in a way that, to me, makes him look shorter than he is. That's his lefthanded goofiness.

That may be the main reason for most who are down on him. There's also the issue that he strikes out a ton and doesn't walk much, two very big red flags when evaluating a prospect. So, even if Corey never existed, I'm sure there would be many with doubts. There's also the fact that a certain part of the crowd views all prospects as suspects first and foremost.

In recent years the Cubs have been both at or near the top and bottom in strikeouts. They've been at or near the top in sacrifices as well. What they haven't been is anywhere near the top in walks taken, OBP or runs scored. That is what matters.

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line. Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up? You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result. That's why I love baseball, all the variables are a chess game. Putting the ball in play pros: Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season Poor defenders / defenses - A guy that could hit the ball to Chris Duncan four times a game is likely to have a productive day. Prince Fielder may hit a ton, but he's not goin to have great range on Defense. Advancing runners - As Cuse pointed out. We all have our own opinions. My experiece tells me these hypotheticals do matter, I'm just not smart enough to back them up with stats. :D I think the mistake is thinking there are choices involved here. You don't just choose to put it in play or choose to strikeout. You try to hit the ball hard and go from there. Baseball is much less of a chess game than the myth makers in the media would like everybody to believe. The vast majority of outcomes are determined by the ability of the players taking part, mainly the pitcher and the hitter.

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line. Yes, Cuse, that's exactly what I said. By writing that I believe in the out is an out theory, I was really saying that with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs I would prefer a strikeout to a deep fly ball to the OF. What were you saying then? I think that's obvious. What I'd like to know is why you purposefully and obnoxiously added an obviously baseless "so you would rather" assumption into your response when nowhere in my post did I come anywhere close to even suggesting I would prefer a k to a deep fly in that situation. I didn't mean for it to sound so challenging, I just was asking for clarification of what you meant. No you weren't. You specifically took my "out is an out" statement, that did not include any reference to a prefered form of out, and then purposefully inserted a preference that you obviously knew would be illogical. For the record, I would prefer the deep fly. But my focus is going to be almost exclusively on the production at the plate numbers. If there is match of players, discounting things like age, salary, and other variables, I would prefer the one that strikes out less, unless that reduction in strikeouts is met with a net detrimental increase in double plays. I do believe that specifically playing for the sac fly is usually rather stupid. If a guy is on 2nd, and you use an out to get him to 3rd, you are basically leaving the value of that decision up to the next hitter alone, as opposed to all 3 guys, because he's the only one with a chance to have another productive out. The next guy is going to have to get a hit anyway. And you are basically taking the bat out of two players hands, because you are forcing one to ground out to the right side and forcing the next guy to hit a deep fly, as opposed to letting them use their normal comfortable swings. And they will be doing this all while the opposing pitcher is probably going to be doing whatever he can to prevent a deep fly. And even if that player does find a pitch he can hit into the air, you are narrowing his chances for success even further because while in a normal at bat, he has the option of hitting to left, center, right, on the ground, line drive or in the air, on any given pitch, in a "hit a deep fly to the OF" situation he doesn't have the leeway of taking what he is given. I would prefer a thought process of hit it hard, and if it's an option, deep in the air. A weak groundball to 1st with no outs and a man on second is rarely a good thing. That player deserves far less recognition than the player who may, or instance, lines one sharply down the line but just foul, and then lines out to short. At least that 2nd guy gave you a couple of really good swings, and a chance for a nice inning. I would bet the vast majority of so called "productive outs" don't actually lead to the production of runs anyway. So, while a deep fly ball to the OF is clearly better than a strikeout with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs, the whole topic of strikeouts, their perceived and actual negative value, and how they relate to so-called "productive outs", isn't worth the amount of time and thought put into the discussion.

A man of his wealth and wisdom should be familiar with the benefits of moving on to the younger body.