scarey

Three consecutive bad outings.

Peoria's hitters are starting to come around. If Fitzgerald, Rohan, and Bour could develop some home run power, we might have some decent prospects on our hands. Good to see Watkins, Cerda, and Lee's lines are starting to look decent.

What makes the least sense of all of this is... hasn't Zambrano been an active participant in the "hazing" in the past?

Not saying I'm totally blowing it off, but people that automatically believe this are doing so because they want to believe it's true IMO. Wow, that's quite a leap. Why would I want it to be true? I find it plausible simply because they have been very bad (including losing several close games), Z's issues have been well-documented, and Ramirez is having the worst season of his career by a long ways. Its not unusual for people to get frustrated and start acting out in this sort of situation. I'm not saying its the end of the world, I am just saying its plausible. People want it to be true because it's just another angle on why Lou should be fired. Also, I agree that it's plausible, but that's not what you said originally. Maybe you misspoke, but I have feeling when you originally typed "I buy it" you weren't meaning it was plausible.

Not saying I'm totally blowing it off, but people that automatically believe this are doing so because they want to believe it's true IMO.

I'm a bit confused. I thought "gritty" was how people try to explain why they like a player that is not very gifted but hustles. Are you saying you think Sandberg will want to stock the team with Theriot's? Or are you describing "gritty" and "playing the right way" as some thing different?

Trammell's numbers are a little skewed because of his first season when the team was desperately trying everything they could to score runs, but it is true that his teams were near the top of the league during his tenure in sac bunts. I don't know how he would handle more talented teams than the ones he had so I think the book might still be out on him. The one advantage I see with Trammell over somebody like Lou is that Trammell seems to be genuinely interested in developing younger players. Oh, and he actually watches the ball games. Whether or not he would be better than Sandberg, I have no idea. For me, it all starts with the quality of players put on the roster. If there were a GM in place who was doing a better and more consistent job, I really don't care who the manager is as long as he has some sort of sense on how to manage the entire pitching staff or at least defer to Larry. Hell, load the roster and let Larry run the show. I think keeping an open mind is probably the most level headed idea if Sandberg or Trammell get the job. I only pointed out Trammell's numbers because they are less speculative than what's being said about Sandberg in my opinion. And Nuts & Gum, I agree. Trammell's horrible team should be taken into account relative to his baseball philosophy.

This is where we are going to disagree. I don't think one party is going to convince the other party otherwise so... agree to disagree?

This is where I'm at really. Nail biting about Sandberg as manager is overblown in my opinion. really? because it seems like you're actually in "i'm going to defend Sandberg against all comers" territory. I think you're trying to set me up as a blind Sandberg supporter. That, I am not. I find it foolish to dig for reasons to not like him much in the same way that it is foolish to want him as manager simply because he's Ryne Sandberg. I think there's a handful of people that actually know what kind of manager he is (and I don't think anyone on this forum is included in that handful except for maybe a select few people that spent a season(s) going/listening to a majority of his teams games). Everyone else is speculating, but some seem to talk as if they do in fact know. So, I'll ask that you excuse me if you disagree with the idea that I find it fair to see what kind of manager he actually is before condemning him. That's all. It has nothing to do with defending Sandberg because he's Sandberg, but with defending a manager candidate.

When did this actually happen? I feel like it was hyperbole thrown out by someone at some point and has turned into the definitive proof that he would be a terrible manager. Hell, even if that's what the box score actually reads, we don't even know if in that particular situation the number three hitter was someone that had decent speed and thought he could reach by sneaking in a bunt that turned into a SH. It happened at least once last year and I was AT the game in Jackson TN. At another game he was kicked out while making a pitching change in the 3rd inning. You should read the minor league threads. You can feel whatever you want, Sandberg is a moronic manager. There's no way I could tell for sure, but I would make a healthy wager that I spend more time in the minor league forums than you do. Not that it even means anything in terms of this discussion.

This is where I'm at really. Nail biting about Sandberg as manager is overblown in my opinion.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on total sac bunt numbers. The point with the Sandberg incident isn't the general use of a sac bunt as opposed to who he was having sac bunt and what were the circumstances. You keep approaching this like people here are denouncing the sac bunt as some kind of baseball kryptonite. It's just one part of the game and it can be used well. The hit and run can also be used well, but it can also be used very poorly, as we've seen with Lou. I understand we don't know the context of the situations Trammell used sac bunts in during his tenure as the Tigers manager (unless anyone here is a closet Tigers fan?). However, you have to admit that an AL manager having a comparable amount of sac bunts to an NL manager, given an AL manager only has to have a pitcher bat in a handful of games, may indicate that said AL manager may sac bunt inappropriately. Right? I mean, I don't have dew for a first hand testimonial or anything, but you can see why I might jump to that conclusion?

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't think Lou sac bunts way too often. He tends to let the wrong guys steal sometimes (Theriot when he's not having success) and he hits and runs a bit too much, but I don't think he overly sac bunts all that much. Yeah, it seems the issue with small ball with Lou is the hit and run and too many attempts stealing with the wrong players and at the wrong times. He doesn't really call for many sac bunts. And who is "seeking salvation" in Trammell? My point was Lou has been managing an NL team and had comparable sac bunt numbers to Trammell who was managing an AL team. And there's plenty of people that have said "I hope they just give the job to Trammell instead". They've even done it in this thread. If you want to challenge the wording itself (specifically 'salvation'), I guess you have a case against me. But I'm pretty sure you understood what I meant: there are people who feel Trammell would be the better candidate.

I also want to point out that people seeking salvation in Trammell may be in for a disappointment. In his three years managing Detroit, Trammell averaged only sightly less sac bunts per year than Piniella did the last three years as a Cub for an NL team. If Trammell is bunting that much with a DH, I have to figure he'll be bunting at a Dusty Baker like rate.

Well, I guess not only is he a terrible manager, he is at a sub-human intelligence.

Ty Wright? I suspect he was trying to get on via sac bunt especially considering that was his one and only SH of the year. Edit: Minor league splits shows that as his only SH of the year while baseballcube shows he had 7 as Bob Sanders states.

As TT said, it could have been the 4 hitter instead of the 3 hitter, but otherwise that's exactly what happened. The runners beforehand reached base and then Sandberg had a sac bunt laid down to move the runners over. If there was another reason for doing it, I haven't heard Ryno give why. But seriously, take Sandberg's name out of the equation. Wouldn't you think something unusual happened here? A missed sign? An attempt at a bunt base hit? There's plenty of explanations that make more sense than "Sandberg was giving up an out to move his base runners over with his 4 hitter so his 5 hitter could drive them in".

When did this actually happen? I feel like it was hyperbole thrown out by someone at some point and has turned into the definitive proof that he would be a terrible manager. Hell, even if that's what the box score actually reads, we don't even know if in that particular situation the number three hitter was someone that had decent speed and thought he could reach by sneaking in a bunt that turned into a SH. Last year. Search function isn't working or I'd dig it up. In doing a google site search I found it might've been the 4 hitter after the first 3 guys got hits, but the principle is the same. My fuzzy memory was that it was not someone with wheels. Do you understand why I have a hard time believing that's what really happened? If that is absolutely what happened without any alterior motive and that is what Sandberg would do at the Major League level, then it would have to be the dumbest most stuborn managerial decision ever made. No exageration. I don't care who the manager was, I have to believe there's an explanation if this is without a shadow of a doubt what happened. It could have been a 6 year old making the decision and I would not believe it.

When did this actually happen? I feel like it was hyperbole thrown out by someone at some point and has turned into the definitive proof that he would be a terrible manager. Hell, even if that's what the box score actually reads, we don't even know if in that particular situation the number three hitter was someone that had decent speed and thought he could reach by sneaking in a bunt that turned into a SH.

Has Castellanos dropped that far? The guy can hit to all fields with power and should be able to stick at third base. What's not to like?

Really? They've given out bonuses of 500k or more to Jin-Yeong Kim, Wilson Contreras, Dong-Yub Kim, and Kyung-Min Na in just the last year. I know they aren't signing the 2-3 million bonus guys, but that's a pretty decent alotment for international free agents. And it kind of fits the quantity over quality theory. 4 guys getting 500k each instead of one guy getting 2-3m. Well... to be honest only one of those guys got 500k. Dong-Yub Kim got a 550k bonus. The other guys I listed got closer to $1 million. It's a semantics issue, but I just thought of quantity over quality would be more like signing ten $200k-$300k guys.

Really? They've given out bonuses of 500k or more to Jin-Yeong Kim, Wilson Contreras, Dong-Yub Kim, and Kyung-Min Na in just the last year. I know they aren't signing the 2-3 million bonus guys, but that's a pretty decent alotment for international free agents.

You're making the assumption that they are making the decision to promote him based on his stat line rather than other factors like pitch recognition and fielding. For all we know, Vitters may be sitting on fastballs and they want to force him to hit breaking balls against more advanced pitching. I guess what I'm confused about is you seem to think there is some reason that they're promoting Vitters and that it's not a good one. I just don't understand what would be promoting a player for the wrong reason? What are you implying their motive is?

When can we start talking about Bibens-Dirkx as a legitimate prospect? I know he's 25 years old, but it looks like injuries and control problems were his problems in the past and he seems to have overcome both of those issues. All the guy does is get outs. Also, does anyone know what his repertoire includes? I've heard low 90s fastball, slider, curve, change up. Any idea on how effective each of those pitches are? He's getting a lot of ground outs and not a huge amount of strikeouts like he used to. I'm wondering if his changeup is his go to pitch? Or if his fastball has some sink on it?

Dayton Moore is also a dumb person. And would probably loooove Ryan Theriot. Well, in that case I think we should do a Chad Tracy for Moustakas swap too. We're not talking about trading for the Royals' best players, or their best prospects. Kila has been in AAA for 3 years and hasn't gotten any opportunity, it's clear they don't value him. Gordon would obviously be a little different, but they're getting restless with him and his ineffectiveness, and the aforementioned Moustakas is killing the ball. Moore's most recent acquisitions are Podsednik, Ankiel, and Betancourt, he's not good at his job, and it's not unreasonable to think some team could buy low on Kila or even Gordon. My point is you can't just ignore everything in the equation and just chalk it up to "Moore is an idiot". It really makes very little sense for them to trade for Silva. It doesn't help your case by rationalizing it by saying they are willing to give up decent young talent (regardless of if they undervalue that talent or not) for an expensive aging player that is playing way above his head compared to the previous two seasons. Think about it this way, I'm sure there's a reason you would keep Gorzelanny/Wells over Silva, right? It's going to be the same reason the Royals would want to get those guys rather than Silva.