Bruno7481

not very many. Like I said, I could point to you at least a dozen outs since he's come back that Lee made that the other first baseman wouldn't have made, due to Lee's quick feet and his ability to stretch out for balls. Don't you think that saves us some runs? i highly doubt that. Another example.... DLee contributes so much offensively and defensively.

Why would you put anybody on the DL in September? Doesn't make any sense to with the expanded rosters.

I don't think there can be any harm in letting Pie start out at AAA in 07. He is still mplenty young enough that it isn't going to set him back, he can only improve. As to what the Cubs decide to do with CF, that is another can of worms. Pierre started out terribly, but has played pretty well since July especially. If they re-sign him for longer than 1 year I really wonder how that affects Pie's future. June: .283/.352 July .345/.380 August .304/.346 Sept .476/.522 Blows Patterson's numbers out of the water after all the praise he received after a hot begining of the season.

I think the Farnsworth trade has been considered good for quite a while now. I thought he was traded when his value was its lowest coming off that poor second half. The year after the trade he did very well w/Det and ATL. I didn't have a problem with trading Kyle, the timing didn't work for me. There was a good possibility at the time that Farnsworth would increase his value from the point he was traded from the Cubs, his trade to ATL helped confirm that. Not directed at you Bruno.... Statistically, Novoa has been far from avg., he's been one of the worst. I'm in agreement that they probably could have received more for Farnsworth. But at the same time, I don't think he would have been much of a difference maker on this team the past two years, especially with what he is making. Like others have stated, it is pretty much a wash unless Moore puts things together.

I think the Farnsworth trade has been considered good for quite a while now. How so? Novoa has been just shy of brutally awful, and Moore hasn't exactly been a "can't-miss". Guys like Farnsworth cab be replaced. He's making 5.5 million this year, I don't think he is worth that. Moore has some potential, we shall see. I just don't think Farnsworthhas been any great loss since his departure.

I think the Farnsworth trade has been considered good for quite a while now.

Would you chalk up that inning as successful if you were down 2 and it was in the 9th inning? Play to your situation. Of course you play to the situation. That inning would be successful enough that it would at least bring the tying run to the plate. The point of that scenario is just to prove that innings like that can be successful. From reading this thread I got the impression that a situation that I decribe would never be good, almost always negative. It just simply isn't the case. You are 100% right though, it depends on the situation.

I agree that it is hard to judge the relative sucess of an AB with the few lines of play-by-play that were posted earlier. Dan Johnson hit a sac fly, he could have done a lot worse, and could have done better at the same time. I'm more concerned with the individual quality of the AB. Maybe Johnson hit a lazy flyball. Or he could have hit one to the wall, or been robbed by a dving catch like UK mentioned. If that is the case, that is just part of the game, not necessarilly a failure. I'd be hard pressed to "blame" a guy who crushed one to the wall. And for the record, put me in the group that considers the follwing to be a successfull inning. Juan Pierre doubles. Ryan Theriot grounds out to 2nd. Pierre advances to 3rd. Aramis Ramirez grounds out to shortstop. Pierre Scores. Sure it's not a big inning, but sprinkle a couple of those in between a big inning and you will have a good ballclub.

Opps part II? :wink:

4/27 .148/.179/.333 Last 7+ games. Barrett hasn't exactly been Johnny Bench lately. I can't get too upset w/ a sac bunt in the top of the 9th, when 1 run more than likely will win the ballgame.

And that right there, is your 2006 Chicago Cubs.

ehhhh..... IBB to Murton

Good job MB... Lets go Murt!

As in Kerry Wood? He's damaged goods, it's time to cut bait with him. Enough of these injury prone players who spend more time throwing towel drills than they do playing in a real game. id take the risk on him especially with a pay cut, the potential upside with him closing is worth a couple of million, i mean afterall we paid fantastic talent such as neifi perez and glendon rusch for more Giada!

But this gets back to UK's point...how will we know Pie will be better than Colvin both offensively and defensively? We all know Pie's ceiling is really good and justifiably merits him being considered one of the Top 25 prospects in all of baseball, but any number of things could happen to him. Let's look at the best case scenario. Even though it may not happen, assume for the sake of the argument that Pie wins the CF job out of spring training in 2007. Over the next two seasons, Pie goes on to play at a high level and lives up to his expectations. Come 2009, Jacque Jones' contract is up and Colvin is ready to be called up to the majors, showing himself to be a bit above average in CF and shows that he could be an ideal middle of the order hitter who can post good OBPs with 20-25 HRs. Pie moves to RF and Colvin gets CF, while the Cubs don't have much in the way of salary tied up in the OF while getting good production from CF and RF. The odds of that happening are miniscule, but it's nice to dream. However, there's always the chance that Pie pulls a CPatt while Colvin goes on to put up Murton-like numbers in High A & AA (only with less patience and better power). If Colvin can put up a comparable OPS to Murton, only from CF with better D, wouldn't that make this pick worthwhile? I'm not predicting Colvin will be an All Star or even make the majors. However, I think this board has largely been jumping the gun with ripping on him and the Cubs for making that pick. The Northwest League is not a place with greatly lesser talent than what Colvin faced in college. Plenty of top college draft picks have started at a comparable or lower level than Colvin. A number of us have also been horribly wrong on a number of occasions when it comes to projecting these things. I'm happy to admit to being among those people. What's going to matter the most for him is next season. He'll probably start in Peoria but be fast-tracked if he performs well enough. We'll find out, one way or another. Exactly. Were you around back in the ESPN days when the upraor occured over the Adam Morrissey for Mark Bellhorn trade?

That's always a good sign. Still, we'll see how he develops and if he can stick at CF. Here's a sobering thought. Even if he sticks at CF, he's only 7 months younger than Pie. Is there any chance that Colvin will be a better player than Felix? Doubtful. You never draft based on potential major league depth, especially when the player in question (Pie) hasn't played in the majors and had a chance to prove he can stick or flounder. It would be similar to 5 years ago, complaining about the Cubs signing Pie from the DR with Patterson almost ready for the majors. Was going to post the same thing. You beat me to it. (Cats have a chance Suday?)

Restovich with Pittsburgh last year: .214/.283/.345 Granted in only 84AB's. Yet those 84 AB's were the most in a season in his major league career.

While your at it, try to get David Wright as well... :roll:

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter. I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire. Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period. Agreed. Get me Davey Johnson who will piss everyone off in route to winning 2-3 penants. I'm not opposed to Girardi; however, once again let me state my candidates on order of preference. 1. Dierker 2. Johnson 3. Gonzalez I'd be happy with any of the three. After that, there's a number of names I might be ok with, but I'm not overly excited about. Girardi is in that group. Why would you want Gonzalez over Girardi? Just curious? Gonzalez has had success managing in the minors as well as working with major league teams. I'd hope some of Cox's philosophies would rub off on him as well. I've heard some of the things Girardi has said, and he's filled with a little too much CW for my liking. I'm not saying he'd be a bad choice, and he certainly has done much with little in Florida, but I'd prefer someone less inclined to use CW in their decisions. Certainly Gonzalez time with Cox is a plus. But don't forget Girardi spent some time around a pretty good manager as well, Joe Torre.

I don't really understand what it means to know if a guy can manage at the ML level. It's not like it's a skill, like hitting a curve ball. I think far too much importance is given to tenure as a major league manager, that's why so many guys are recycled through the system. I think you are severly oversimplifying things by saying managing is not a skill. Decision making, strategy, knowledge, player relationships, etc all involve skill. No manager search will be needed by your criteria, just pull somebody off of the streets.

Actually in that situation you have to have them shallow. Anything over their head is going to end the game anyway. Has nothing to do with their arm strength. Sure it does. It doesn't matter now, but if you have a stronger arm, you can play deeper cause you could throw out a runner tagging from third from farther away. With that situation in the 9th, the saying goes "play as far as your arm strength allows". How deep you play is directly proportional to your arm strength. Point is though, doesnt matter what kind of arms you have in the outfield, they are going to be playing very shallow. Vladimir Guerrero would be playing shallow. Playing shallow allows you obviously to have a shorter throw to home, but also gives you a better chance to make a play on the ball in front of you, something you might not get to if you were playing at normal depth. A routin flyball ends the game, there is no point in playing at a routine depth.

Why is Bennert calling Bonnie "Man"?

Shades of Edgar Renteria against Antonio Alfonseca.... Unfreakin real

Actually in that situation you have to have them shallow. Anything over their head is going to end the game anyway. Has nothing to do with their arm strength.

Ahhhh.... Almost