jersey cubs fan

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.

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.

Yes, if the purpose is for filler it's a waste, but if the purpose is to allow more opportunity to see the better guys in action, it may have value. Then again, it's not like I have faith in the Cubs' ability to run an efficient operation.

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.

Yeah, I'd take a team full of Pujols bats if I could as well. But I'm not going to scoff at a producer who also happens to K a lot, regardless of spot in order.

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.

I must have been remembering 2007 totals with AAA and majors combined. I will revise that part of my statement to say that while they may have improved, they are still awful numbers.

I'd just quote this post, but I think that might qualify as "groupthink." By the way, have I mentioned that the next groupthink meeting is for this Thursday at 4:00. I will have to attend telepathically, as usual.

I want all 9 guys in the lineup to see many pitches to: A) Improve the chances that they'll see a mistake pitch in their at bat. B) Tire the pitcher so that he may make a mistake later in the game and/or become less effective with fatigue. C) Get to the bullpen. I don't think there's any value in letting other guys see what he's throwing.

I think the stigma is explicable. It's the dogmatic obsession with the strikeout once logic has been entered into the discussion that is inexplicable to me. I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

The opinion on Pie is widely varied. There may be 2-3 people whose dislike for Pie as a prospect can come anywhere close to hate. If anybody has proposed trading him for crap, I haven't seen it. And if you believe that the names that have been mentioned are crap, then perhaps you are as guilty as anybody who hates Pie of unfairly hating on those players. While those rates may have improved, the numbers themselves are still bad. His OPS got good, but his walk rate and strikeout rate, red flags for a prospect in my opinion, did not suddenly become good. What's the point of listing Hill's age? I think the vast majority would have a problem with Fuld in CF. I'm not sure sure Pie will be above average within the next couple months or for the next couple years. He's got significant red flags that have to cause concern in the short and long run. Regardless, even if he does turn out reaching his potential, his age alone is enough to cause doubts for that to happen this year. Lee at 2nd is in no way shape or form similar to Fukudome in CF. Baseball in a vacuum is just a meaningless empty phrase. There have been an extraordinary number of Cubs prospects who have won at multiple levels of the minors, and it would be a mistake to think that has provided any value whatsoever to their major league success. None of what you wrote in paragraph 5 should be given any consideration when considering what to do with Felix Pie this year.

Sure you're not recallin Adam Everett? Cabrera is good defensively, I don't recall him rating out as great. EDIT: And now I see Cabrera wasn't even good last year. Although according to the Sports Guy, Theo's greatest sin was letting him get away, as Orlando's grittiness and defensive prowess were the reason the Red Sox won it all the first time.

Well if Jon Garland = Orlando Cabrera, perhaps Kenny would be interested in a guy who, if he ever improves, may one day be Jon Garland Jr., Samardzija.

:-k

If I had to guess, I would say a big part of the reason why he agreed to go back to single A is because other teams weren't exactly banging down his door with better opportunities. Ryno was a great player and fun to watch. I hold no expectations for his future as a coach/manager.

I hope it's more of what you said in the first paragraph because it seems awful expensive to field a second team primarily for roster filler. Is it? What are the biggest costs? I would assume, building a facility, employing scouts and signing the really good players. Assuming the 2nd team would share the facility and be watched by the same scouts, is it really all that expensive to field another team of Dominican filler?

Ichiro and Lou can both speak Spanish, I assume Lou better than Ichiro. That's how they communicated. In other words, Lou doesn't speak Japanese.

I would assume that's up for negotiations if Boras had nothing to do with the contract itself.