CubsWin

You can't call all of Walker, Neifi, and Hairston bench players. One of them has to start on the middle infield. That is why I said over $10M in bench players $13M - one of the $2.5 salaries. Rusch is a bench player? Does spending $3M for a 5th starter/long reliever truly qualify as wasteful? I think Rusch's numbers over the last two seasons when examined more closely show that he is worth a contract like that. I agree spending 2.5 million on Perez (especially for 2 seasons) was and is difficult to understand. With Hairston under the Cubs control, Walker's option picked up and Cedeno on the roster, couldn't Hendry have found a back-up SS (which is the only position not covered by the other player's mentioned) for less than 2.5 million? But how is a mill for Mabry wasteful or 1.5 for Blanco? I fail to see how those contracts qualify as wasting money. Hairston is worth that kind of money because of the coverage he provides in a lot of key areas. His .350ish OBP and good speed make him the next best lead-off hitter behind Pierre giving the Cubs decent protection if Juan were to get hurt. He can play all the OF positions and 2B relatively well defensively, and his bat isn't terrible for a bench player. So, of your list, I really only see the Perez signing as worthy of the phrase "wasting money". But I'm open to understanding why you think differently.

Yeah, and you'd think I'd have known that given the amount of minor league games I have followed over the last two seasons. I also miscalculated the amount of Ks/Inn Phelps had last year. Not one of my more accurate posts. :oops: It was kinda late when I wrote that one. :wink: As well as this one...

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=28493 Cool, thanks, CR.

No, not really. It does underscore, however, what a poor decision Baker made every time he batted Neifi either first or second in the order, which he did 382 times last season. Ouch. Does anybody understand why didn't he play Hairston in the lead-off spot more often? Too bad Hairston couldn't man the SS position last season. Here's hoping Pierre in the lead-off spot will make a difference. Neifi had 335 PA's in the 1 or 2 spot after April(date selected because it removes an abnormal hot streak from Neifi, and I'm not sure when Lee started hitting 3rd. If anyone can find that out I can recalculate from that date). He hit .253/.268/.350/.618 in those PA's. That's unacceptable from any spot in the order(Also of note, his overall numbers in that span: .262/.284/.359/.643). Isn't it also unacceptable to pick and choose which portion of a player's stats you want to include in the debate? He still helped the team win the games in which he hit well, right? I mean we all know that Neifi isn't very good with the bat, but does that mean that when he actually does do well it doesn't count? Come on, let's be fair to the guy. As a back-up SS, Perez is probably about average, certainly far from the worst. There were several other back-up middle IFers with worse offensive numbers last year. Most of those guys, however, weren't pressed into starting duty due to injury and, hopefully, they weren't batting 1st or 2nd in the order when they did play. But my point was, why was Baker not playing Hairston more often given the Cubs dire need for a lead-off guy? Until Cedeno came along, Baker really didn't have many options at SS so Neifi almost had to be in the line-up, but there is no excuse for batting him at the top of the order. Baker also kept running Corey out there to play CF and Hollandsworth/Dubois in LF when Hairston could have playing instead of them and providing the Cubs with their much needed lead-off hitter. At what point is it reasonable to start working Hairston in at those two positions especially when every other lead-off hitter is failing miserably to get on base in front of an incredibly hot Derrek Lee? Was Hairston's lack of playing time really due to him not being 100%? He was able to play. Did he need time off due to soreness or something?

Hey O_O, how did you come by the freaky costumed Cubs picture in your sig?

My "gut feeling" guy is Mark Reed. He has struggled so far in his young career, but he has too much talent, apparently, to not put it together soon. I'm going with Michael Phelps based on statistics. Drafted in the 11th round out of Central Missouri State, Phelps could be to the '05 draft what Sean Gallagher (12th round) has been to the '04 draft. At the age of 21, Phelps advanced all the way to High-A Daytona. He began in Mesa, where he struckout the only two batters he faced before being promoted to Lansing. He only pitched 17 innings at Lansing all out of the pen striking out 17, walking only 3 and allowing only 12 hits (1.59 ERA, 1-for-1 in save opportunites) before being bumped up again to Daytona. His numbers at Daytona weren't bad either. He pitched 5 2/3 innings striking out 8, walking 4 and allowing only 2 hits. He converted the 1 save opportunity he was given at Daytona, as well. On the season, Phelps pitched in 17 games, throwing 23.3 innings, allowing just 14 hits, 0 HRs, striking out 27 (1.58 Ks/Inning) while walking only 7 for a WHIP under one (0.90). He went 1-1 with a 2.34 ERA and was 2-for-2 in save opportunities. I would expect that he would stay a reliever this year. He'll be 22 in May. If he starts the year in High-A and advances to AA later, he'll remain ahead of schedule.

Diffusion! Breakin' down the numbers again. Nice!

No, not really. It does underscore, however, what a poor decision Baker made every time he batted Neifi either first or second in the order, which he did 382 times last season. Ouch. Does anybody understand why didn't he play Hairston in the lead-off spot more often? Too bad Hairston couldn't man the SS position last season. Here's hoping Pierre in the lead-off spot will make a difference.

Ok, lets review. 1. Bill James didn't write Moneyball or have anything to do with it. 2. Moneyball did not address the importance of OBP other than that Billy Beane recognized its value. 3. Just because you criticize the moves a GM makes, does not mean you think you could be a better GM. This is similar to arguing that because you criticize a player for striking out you think you could do better. 4. Most people don't scapegoat Neifi other than to point out the fact that his playing everyday and batting at the top of the order probably cost the Cubs a lot of runs. 5. Neifi's production could be obtained from a player making near league minimum. This makes Neifi's contract a bad one. This is not remotely related to fantasy baseball. This is very related to Moneyball. Have you read it? 6. The judge and jury part I don't understand. Yes, Neifi's abilities can be evaluated based entirely on statistics. What does he provide that can't be measured by statistics? Well, on points 1, 2 & 3, like I said at the top, I'm probably wrong. Which in a funny way kinda makes me right. Weird... Also, I was addressing people who actually hate Neifi Perez. This is a very small percentage of people so, whereas, I agree with point number 4, it doesn't really apply to our conversation. In point 5, were you refering to offensive production only? And in point 6, what I meant by people being the prosecutor, judge and jury on a certain issue is just that often on message boards, people don't write their opinions and acknowledge that they are just their relatively uninformed opinions, they write them like they are the truth and if anyone disagrees with them they will vehemently stick to their guns, arguing to the death and never really learning anything. Clearly, I have a lot to learn about being a GM. So I write like it. But judging by how a lot of these threads go, few others believe they have anything left to learn about how to build a baseball team.

Thanks for your opinion. Unfortunately, you provided nothing besides that opinion so I have little understanding for why you thought what you thought. So let me start by expanding on why I wrote what I wrote. I was describing a very small percentage of fans who actually hate Neifi Perez and feel he has no right to be on a major league baseball roster. Most, if not all, of the people who have responded in this thread don't fit that description. They say they hate the way he has been used by Dusty Baker. I agree. They say that he is pretty bad offensively. I agree. They say that his optimal role would be to come off the bench as a defensive replacement, I agree. Then there are those who say they don't hate Neifi but believe he shouldn't be in the bigs. I disagree, but see the value in their arguments. My original post was describing those fans who hate him and believe he has no right to be on a major league roster. They state this opinion like it is an absolute truth. They then conclude that Hendry is an idiot for ever signing him. They often conclude that because Neifi has started a lot since signing with the Cubs, most often due to injury, that Hendry intended him to be a starter and then they hate on Hendry some more. It was to those fans that I was responding. They are few and far between. The only way I see fantasy baseball having an effect on how fans like that arrive at their opinions is that they mistakenly believe that the value of a baseball player can accurately be summed up in statistics alone, and that all it takes to be a successful GM is to be able to understand the significance of those statistics. For those few fans that believe that, not only do I disagree but I feel that the onset of fantasy baseball has played a part in forming their opinion. As far as posters being the prosecutor, judge and jury on a subject and expressing their opinions without reservation and as if they are absolutely correct, that happens all the time on message boards like this. So I hope that helps explain where I was coming from.

Thanks for that, TT. There is a lot of data that supports the notion of just how often luck comes into play in baseball. That's what makes teams like the Braves who have been able to win consistently over a lot of years so amazing to me.

I appreciate the follow up. I still think this whole thing was blown out of proportion. But did you really think those steadfast that it wasn't a direct quote would come out and say they were wrong? Why wouldn't they? I've been wrong and admitted on this site before. I don't think anyone on this site thinks that they are perfect, do they? Wow - silence on that one was deafening. What sort of argument are you guys trying to start now? We were just joking around about the fact that no one responded. Its funny that someone would take a stand defending the posters here at NSBB and then the mere coincidental fact that no one responded after that would make it look like everyone does think that they are perfect. I like the posters on this board even though I disagree with some of them on some issues. I feel camaraderie with anyone who is a Cubs fan. Don't you, goony?

I appreciate the follow up. I still think this whole thing was blown out of proportion. But did you really think those steadfast that it wasn't a direct quote would come out and say they were wrong? Why wouldn't they? I've been wrong and admitted on this site before. I don't think anyone on this site thinks that they are perfect, do they? Wow - silence on that one was deafening.

I don't know exactly why people hate Neifi Perez so much. I'm probably wrong, but it may have something to do with the onset of fantasy baseball, the Bill James book Moneyball and the frustration of the Cubs failing to win a World Series during our lifetimes. When you mix the notion that you could be just as good of a GM as the next guy because you won your fantasy baseball league with the importance some people who have read Moneyball (and played fantasy baseball) place on OBP and then add in a healthy dose of anger and frustration with the lack of a Cubs championship, scapegoats and whipping boys start coming out of the woodwork. "Neifi Perez?! He sucks. He would never be on my fantasy baseball team. In fact, he wasn't on anyone's roster in the league I was in. Plus, look at his OBP. Its terrible. Even I know that Neifi doesn't deserve to be on a major league roster. Hendry must be an idiot." And that is the end of deliberations in the trial of Neifi Perez. It must feel good to be the prosecutor, judge and jury. Disclaimer: For those that wish to respond to this post and make this a black-and-white issue without any complexities, please read this first. This is one person's opinion and I certainly could be wrong. I am open to understanding those who hate Neifi Perez and think he is undeserving of a spot on any major league roster. I love fantasy sports. I agree with what Moneyball has to say for the most part. And I agree that getting on base will help your team score runs. But I don't think that Neifi Perez sucks. Nor do I think that he doesn't deserve to be on a major league roster. I don't think he was ever signed by the Cubs with the intention of being a starter. I don't think he should start. I think that there are a lot of ways to help your team win and getting on base over 35% of the time is just one of them. I don't think stats tell the whole story of what a player brings to a team's ability to win games. And I think managers and GMs know more information about their players than the fans do. I don't think they always make the best decisions with that information, however.

Perhaps because they aren't fooled into thinking these guys are geniuses with a talent for baseball knowledge that no mere mortal could comprehend. Also, I don't think fans always think they know more, they just know that the decision making process employed by the Cubs has been proven a failure, so they need to find another way to go. Every GM in major league baseball passed on Branyan in waivers. So every GM in major league baseball lacks "a talent for baseball knowledge"? Not one GM has ascended to their position because they have an uncommon talent for it? If I read your post correctly, this is what you seem to be saying, but I can't bring myself to believe that this is what you actually think. And you also seem to be saying that anyone who dares to believe that some GMs know what they are doing and actually have information that we aren't privy to as fans has "been fooled" into thinking that? That's not what you meant to say, right?

I appreciate the follow up. I still think this whole thing was blown out of proportion. But did you really think those steadfast that it wasn't a direct quote would come out and say they were wrong? Why wouldn't they? I've been wrong and admitted on this site before. I don't think anyone on this site thinks that they are perfect, do they?

If addressed to me... When have I said that Hendry and Baker were idiots? I question their moves and approach to the game, I've also complimented them when I feel they've done something right. I took that statement at face value. Everything I've ever said about Hendry and Baker has been justified. Not addressed to you, UK. Only to those that fit that description. I've fit that description before with other issues. It is a very human thing to do. And the statement only applied to those who have called Baker and Hendry "idiots", or other equivalent names that are also disrespectful and inaccurate. You know who you are. If you disagree with my statement and would like to have a civil and intelligent discussion about it, I'm ready to learn.

When someone has invested so much time and effort in convincing themselves and others that Baker and now Hendry are complete idiots, it is real easy to read a sentence or a quote in the way that supports their previously held opinion. Be that as it may, there was evidence to the contrary before this article and now there is just a little bit more. Dusty has done a lot of things that I personally don't understand and disagree with. Hendry has missed opportunities that I feel he shouldn't have. But, being as level-headed and objective as I can about it, I have never had enough evidence to convince me that either of them was mentally deficient. If anyone can make a really good argument for either of them actually being idiots, I'm ready to be sold. If not, maybe we, as fans of the team, should describe our manager and general manager a little more accurately and respectfully. Or not. :wink:

I agree. That would be the only type deal I would offer to this previously high-priced hurler.

I'm with you, but it's hard to see happening as long as the FBI is still patrolling the dugout. The FBI?

Hence the reason why I think the Orioles were the one to leak this rumor. I think the O's would become very unpopular in baseball circles if they made something like that up. I really do think Prior was\is on the table, too many sources had variations on this deal to have me believe otherwise. The press has been known to run with a rumor from time to time, haven't they? After all, they aren't selling actual news, they are selling newspapers. Its all about circulation and ratings. And with the absence of any quotes coming from Hendry confirming his willingness to trade Prior, the impirical evidence for your theory is non-existent. I'm not saying the O's started this rumor. But I wouldn't put it past Ken Rosenthal to write the article that started this Prior rumor without "filling in the blanks" a little to make his story sound a little more juicy than it actually was.

The only problem is, according to the latest reports, Hendry didn't offer Prior, the O's requested him. Big difference. Hendry's response was basically the same as saying "no" to trading Prior. He said he would need Bedard in return. The O's balked. And thats where it sits. The facts don't support your theory. Hendry doesn't necessarily feel there is "one true hole" in the Cubs middle infield either. He is simply trying to improve the Cubs line-up. He rightly feels the line-up is lacking and is trying to address it. Whether it comes in the form of a middle infielder or an OFer doesn't matter. The signing of Jones, while inexplicable to me, doesn't preclude the Cubs from acquiring a stud RFer. If Murton is included in the deal, Jones moves to LF and the hole in the line-up is addressed without touching the middle infield.

This has been my thinking all along and why I have waited to call Hendry names for trading away Prior. I have thought and still think that Tejada isn't likely to go anywhere, but if he does, the Hendry/Stockstill connection will go a long way towards bringing Tejada to the Cubs.

I don't think it would change anything if the Cubs got Bedard in return. Except for the fact that Prior is a lot better than Bedard, you're right, it wouldn't change a thing. :wink:

First off, I agree with you. There are very few people I would trade Prior for and Tejada isn't one of them. And, yes, it would make a lot of sense to have signed Tejada or Vlad or whomever as a free agent instead of trading someone like Prior for them. No one would argue that point. However, we are referring to those potential signings as if all Hendry had to do was write the check. Its not that simple. Yes, the money is important but often it is far from the only deciding factor. There is a lot of evidence that suggests Giles never intended to leave San Diego. It may be true that Hendry never really pursued the others. But, then again, it may not. Realities are what they are. Sosa and his contract were on the team when many of those guys were out there. The payroll, which has expanded every season, was smaller back then. And then there are the issues of guy's possibly wanting to stay in the American League or live in a certain area. We just don't know. It may be an accurate criticism of Hendry to say he should have signed so and so instead of considering to make a trade like this one. But this specific criticism, which has been made by several different posters in this thread, suffers from revisionist history. I think it is important that we remember that.