lumafia

Whey even make the trade? If that is all Hendry wants, the Mets would be morons not to make that trade. I hope Chris De Luca's just talking out of his arse. Not only will none of these guys help us in the near future, they will most likely never help this team. Unless Lilly has suddenly become a club house cancer, a Lilly trade for only the list of prospects above would be a terrible trade. Why "unless he has become a clubhouse cancer"? Why else would you trade him for nothing? You shouldn't trade him for nothing, regardless of some mythological cancer. The players De Luca has mentioned are, essentially, "nothing". The only way you make that trade would be if Lilly walks into the locker room every day and slaps every member of the team across the face and says they suck and that he is ashamed to be seen on the field with any of them. That would probably qualify him as a "cancer", and would be the only circumstance under which I would trade him for "nothing".

Whey even make the trade? If that is all Hendry wants, the Mets would be morons not to make that trade. I hope Chris De Luca's just talking out of his arse. Not only will none of these guys help us in the near future, they will most likely never help this team. Unless Lilly has suddenly become a club house cancer, a Lilly trade for only the list of prospects above would be a terrible trade. Why "unless he has become a clubhouse cancer"? Why else would you trade him for nothing?

Whey even make the trade? If that is all Hendry wants, the Mets would be morons not to make that trade. I hope Chris De Luca's just talking out of his arse. Not only will none of these guys help us in the near future, they will most likely never help this team. Unless Lilly has suddenly become a club house cancer, a Lilly trade for only the list of prospects above would be a terrible trade.

Not at the table Carlos.

I wonder if they've given up on Brandon Wood yet. Maybe they would let us have Napoli since Conger seems ready to take over behind the plate. Hell, we'll even throw in Colvin for good measure. :beg:

Sorry about the word nobody. I'm sure one out of every 500 kids may have looked at it once. The number may have grown for kids of the 2000s, with all the information about stats readily available to everybody. But the vast, vast, vast majority of kids never looked at a baseball card and subtracted AVG from SLG to determine which players were power hitters. Again, because I feel the need to say this one more time... I never did that to determine anything. I simply noticed the correlation. The thing I took issue with was hawkeyecub calling me a liar. For something so plausible (even if somewhat rare), I don't take kindly to accusations. It would probably be safe to assume that a larger percentage of kids capable of compiling such advanced statistics and determining their correlations to production would find themselves on a website later in life involved in heated discussions including advanced statistics.

You're not, you're just the one being honest. This is extremely offensive. Just because you didn't understand basic math at a young age doesn't mean nobody did. Except nobody was looking at baseball cards and subtracting AVG from SLG to determine which players were powerful hitters. You mean to tell me you find it outside the realm of possibility that a young kid who likes math... a kid who is calculating his own BA and OBP and Slugging from little league games... didn't notice that guys with a bunch of home runs had a slugging percentage about .200-.250 points higher than their batting average and guys who didn't hit home runs had a much lower difference? That the very idea a kid might notice such a thing is so unrealistic that you can determine that nobody did that? Nah. You guys can't say that. You're just being jerks to be jerks. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, but neither is time travel. And just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's probable. You may have done such things as a kid, but that is certainly unusual. When I was a kid, I didn't even care what my batting average was. I don't recall batting average being brought up prior to being 14 or 15 years old.

I think a player needs to take some responsibility for it, but not if the team and/or manager is going to call him out on not being "tough". I don't ever remember Dusty throwing a pitcher under the bus for saying that he was done for the day. If Dusty ever did that, I would put 100% of the blame on Dusty, but I can't recall him ever doing that, so he only gets 70% of the blame. Healthy or not, the abuse to which Prior was subjected bordered on criminal. Every member of the organization deserves responsibility for allowing that to happen. The 2 people who deserved the most criticism are Dusty and Hendry. I realize that Hendry took over in July of that year, but he still had an opportunity to pull the reigns back a little. In 2003, during Prior's first full season in the bigs, he threw over 101 pitches in 28 of his 33 starts (includes playoffs). He threw over 120 pitches 10 times. Over 130 pitches 4 times. In his final 9 starts, Prior AVERAGED 125 pitches per game. In contrast, the Washington Nationals have not allowed Strasburg to throw more than 96 pitches in any of his starts this year. Since 2003, only one other pitcher in baseball with more than 30 starts in a season has averaged more pitches per start (03 Prior, 113 pitches/start) during a season. Livan Hernandez averaged 114 pitches per start in 2004. Thank you, Cubs.

Ryan Theriot isn't underperforming, he's just not good. He's 30 now, and 30 year old middle infielders with scarce productivity on their resumes should be expected to suck. Lee is playing almost exactly like he did for 6 months, between 2008 and 2009, before he bounced back for what looks like his last gasp of productivity. I think it is absurd to suggest this team would improve just by bringing everybody back. It's already an old team full of players whose best days are likely way behind them. It's also absurd to suggest Soto is somehow underperforming anything. Soriano is right on best hopes for production. This team is not better than it's record. That's the same BS nonsense we hear every year when the team doesn't win enough, because everybody needs to look for excuses to cover up Jim Hendry's failures. Just stop already. It's a poorly constructed baseball team. 2009 wasn't some 95 win team that just didn't put it together. 2010 was actually predicted to be quite bad by many people. This isn't a team that is stunningly underachieving. It's not a good baseball team. Every team deals with fluctuations in individual performance. The good ones win despite those struggles. The Cubs aren't good, and their record reflects it. There's room to say that the Cubs are both not a very good baseball team and that a team who is 11 games under .500 at the break is underperforming. If the same team is brought back next year they are really, really likely to win more than 71 games which is what they are on pace to win this year. Hopefully the Cubs don't bring back the same team because there are significant improvements that can be made ( for example while Theriot would be expected to improve next year, he still will be a bad player and there could be many ways to upgrade at 2B). But if you project out player by player, it's hard to come up with a scenario where they finish near 70 wins again. Let's look at one preseason projection sorted by number of at-bats this year. From the highest number of at-bats every 50 below that I put a space to show who has gotten the majority of the at-bats. Theriot: 94 points of OPS less than projected Byrd: 37 points more Lee: 179 points less Soriano: 55 points more Ramirez: 239 points less Fukudome: 11 points less Soto: 87 points more Castro: 37 points more Colvin: 163 points more Fontenot: 3 points less Nady: 168 points less Baker: 90 points less Hill: 130 points less The fall off has been staggering. While the Cubs have had a couple surprises, the downsides have been a lot larger and with players who tend to get more at-bats than the ones to the upside. So, are you saying that if not for Lee and Ramirez, the team would have sucked less? I agree. FYI for everybody. Zambrano, Lee, Ramirez, Theriot, Hill, Samarzidja and Grabow (arguably our biggest combined dissapointments this year) make more combined money than 1/3 of the first place teams in baseball right now.

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing. I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later. Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things. Most kids just looked at HRs and doubles to decide who the sluggers were. In order to figure out who walked alot, one would look at the column that showed how many times they walked.

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP I think he's referring to SLG.

The Rays have full intentions of re-signing Crawford. They feel like they can sneak into the playoffs with Crawford, Zobrist and Jennings in the OF in 2011, and they may be right. Upton is as good as gone, and they would prefer to move him now. If the Cubs are desperate to unload Lilly, Tampa Bay is a likely destination. However, the Rays won't deal unless we take Upton off their hands. I don't know if the Cubs make that deal based on the fact that they will have a huge surplus of OF's.

The only reason day games hurt the Cubs is due to attendance. If the Cubs had a larger stadium and more night games, they would have better attendance numbers. No offense, but the daytime temp excuse is lame. It's not like Chicago is a tropical climate. There are only 2 months out of the year where Chicago has an average daytime high above 80 degrees. July is 83 and August is 81. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hot days in Chicago, but they don't come close to the temperatures and humidity levels in Miami, and the Marlins have 2 championships. If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes? Because they can. and this team will continue to win nothing because they are at a huge disadvantage by playing there. I agree that they are at a disadvantage by playing at Wrigley, but it has nothing to do with them playing more day games than other teams.

The only reason day games hurt the Cubs is due to attendance. If the Cubs had a larger stadium and more night games, they would have better attendance numbers. No offense, but the daytime temp excuse is lame. It's not like Chicago is a tropical climate. There are only 2 months out of the year where Chicago has an average daytime high above 80 degrees. July is 83 and August is 81. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hot days in Chicago, but they don't come close to the temperatures and humidity levels in Miami, and the Marlins have 2 championships. If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes? Because they can. They know it's more profitable to have night games as opposed to day games, and the community around them will allow them to do so. If you've never stood in downtown Miami at 8 pm during August, you would know that the Chicago day game excuse is a bad one. It's 6pm there now and the heat index is 97 degrees.

Turning things around wasn't the objective. so we taught the organization an important life lesson that in no way improved play on the field. hurray? Doing nothing could have made things worse' date=' on and off the field. I thought that was implied with the "inmates running the asylum" comment.[/quote] lisa, i would like to buy your rock If the team really wanted to teach Zambrano a lesson in humility, they would have immediately shipped him off to either Pittsburgh or Baltimore. That way he would be forced to play the remainder of his miserable overpaid career in an empty stadium with no chance of competing for a division title.

Unless you're getting a star out there, couldn't Fontenot + some guy fill the 2B hole in the short-term? I agree. With Fontenot, we should be fine at 2B. The most glaring issue for this team has been production out of 1B and 3B, which is production out of the 3 and 4 hole in the lineup. Outside of that, this team doesn't have many glaring holes. The only positions where the Cubs are below league average are at 1B (.828 vs .694), 3B (.758 vs .604) and 2B (.726 vs .571). And the only reason we are vastly different at 2B is because Lou won't simply put Fontenot (.768 OPS) there every game. I really hate Lou.

Agreed on both counts. I do really like Reese Havens, though I don't know that they'd trade him for a 1/2 year of Ted Lilly. I think he can play in the majors next year, great batting eye, would make Theriot expendable at 2B. The reality is that the Met's farm system doesn't have any prospects that would make an immediate impact, and many of there top prospects are suspect. In addition to that, there big club doesn't have anybody I would necessarily want either. If Hendry does trade with the Mets, it will be a salary dump, and I wouldn't expect too much in return. I'd take Angel Pagan back, but that's about it. The rest of them are either way overpaid, continuously hurt, or not productive.

Is there any hope to get a decent player back or do you think the Cubs are just looking to dump the salary. What is his value? The more and more I look at the rumors, I am starting to get very worried the Cubs are simply looking to dump salary. I have been waiting for this deadline since the middle of last season. If we don't get any good young talent back for our talent, I am going to be pissed. I think it's pretty obvious that dumping salary is exactly what they are doing. It appears that the Cubs are willing to give Colvin the everyday shot in RF while hoping Jackson will continue to develop. I know Kosuke is overpaid, but his .357 OBP and .787 OPS are still above average for OF's, and there are a few playoff contenders that have holes in the OF and at the top of their order. There has to be a market for him. It's just a matter of what Jim wants in return and few teams are going to allow us to dump salary on them without taking some back in return.

The only reason day games hurt the Cubs is due to attendance. If the Cubs had a larger stadium and more night games, they would have better attendance numbers. No offense, but the daytime temp excuse is lame. It's not like Chicago is a tropical climate. There are only 2 months out of the year where Chicago has an average daytime high above 80 degrees. July is 83 and August is 81. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hot days in Chicago, but they don't come close to the temperatures and humidity levels in Miami, and the Marlins have 2 championships.

His .717 OPS would be 5th overall among AL SS. It's amazing how bad they've been. The NL OPS is just .729. It's amazing how bad everybody has been.

Castro is 20 and can still provide value with a SLG% that low. Derrek Lee is 34 and cannot. If Lee was still able to post an OBP in the .360-.400 area like he has the past three years, he could still have some value with a low SLG (though not enough). But his OBP has dropped quite a bit as well. Lee is currently at .372 and Castro is at .382. Castro is currently costing the Cubs $1,050 for each slugging percent. Lee is currently costing the Cubs $34,946 for each slugging percent.

While I know the risks are there with Marmol, I would be opposed to trading him at this point. Marmol, Marshall, and anything from Guzman gives them a solid back of the pen. Offensively, maybe they'll need a 1B depending on Lee. I can't imagine Ramirez declining that player option. They'll need a 2B though. Unfort. they'll likely have too many holes and nopt enough payroll to make them competitive next year. Their best plan will be to see what they have with younger player and their fate likely rest in their hands as well as fighting off decline with Zambrano, Ramirez, Dempster, and Soriano. If your opinion is that they won't have enough to compete next year, why would you want them to hold onto Marmol now, just giving them another meaningless season of risk about his arm? Who would we trade him for? Is Marmol currently experiencing arm problems?

Let's hear some of those stories. I need another reason to hate this year's team.

I don't know how you can say probably not. If he's a sub .300 OBP corner OF there most definitely is something wrong with him as a starter. The more he's played, the worse he's been. The ability for the Cubs to have Tyler Colvin starting everyday, and not suffering as a result, is very much in doubt. A NL average RF is hitting .263/.333/.447 so far this season. He may end up a bit light on the OBP side of that, but is showing he can do the slugging. And he has some extra value with baserunning and fielding. An average to slightly below average RF making league minimum? There's real value in that. Not every team can have superstars at every single position on the field... Hell, not even the Yankees can do that. Besides, we're not going anywhere. Where's the harm in seeing what we've got with him? (I had a problem with this before, as it would sink Fukudome's trade value... but that damage is already done) Well, if you want to field a below average team, having a guy like him in RF is probably a good way to start. But I think the goal is to try and field one of the 3-4 best teams in the NL, or at least upper half. There's nothing wrong with Pittsburgh giving a guy like him the RF job, but there is likely to be something very wrong with a team like the Cubs having him start in RF, on purpose. Having Colvin as the starting RF on this team isn't the problem, putting the team in the position to have Colvin as your only option is the problem. In terms of position players, the 2011 free agent class is shaping up to be one of the weakest in recent years, and the Cubs aren't going to have much payroll flexibility. Almost every productive free agent available for the next 2 years is on the wrong side of 30 already, or will be by 2012. All of MLB has the lowest BA, OBP, SLG, OPS numbers in almost 20 years, and the overrall offensive numbers have been trending down since 2006. The pitching is either getting better, or the hitters are getting worse. Either way, it would be unrealistic to think that the Cubs can find players vastly superior to the type of numbers Colvin is putting up right now. If you can find guys who can consistently give you an .800 OPS, as long as you have a healthy and productive pitching staff, you CAN be a top 3 or 4 team. The Cubs aren't going to be able to go out and get the .900-1.000 OPS type guys. Nobody is. There just aren't that many of them. Prince Fielder, David Wright and Hanley Ramirez are the only active players with a career OPS above .900 that are younger than 30. There just isn't enough production available through free agency to turn the ship around in a year or two. The Cubs are going to have be more creative and make some trades that can net an increase in production or they are going to have to find help from within. That would include vast improvements from players like Lee and Ramirez, who will both be on the Cub roster next year.

Fine. Larry Walker made his ML debut at 23, played his first full season at the age of 24 and his numbers in the first 200 AB's are favorable to Colvin as well. Look guys. I'm not saying Colvin will have careers like Prince or Larry Walker. Most likely, his career won't be close to either. I'm simply saying that it is too early to make a decision on whether or not he is going to maintain his pace, or have a productive career. Considering the direction of our current team, it would be logical to suggest that he get more regular playing time versus RH and LH pitching. The club needs to know what they've got before they make a decision.