CubsWin

Nor would I. Nor would I, but this has got me thinking. I would trade Walker and prospects to the Twins for Hunter and Crain, if I knew that the Marlins would take EPatt, Hairston and other prospects (Hill or Williams, etc.) for Castillo. That would give the Cubs a line-up of: Castillo (switch-hitter with a .390 OBP and gold glove caliber defense) Nomar/Cedeno Giles (assuming they can sign him) Lee Ramirez Hunter Murton Barrett It gets pretty heavily right-handed, but it ain't too shabby. Not too mention that the Cubs would also have added a great, young reliever to a bullpen that sorely needs one in Crain. I know, I know. The Marlins won't trade Castillo. Blah, blah, blah...

Castillo would be an offensive upgrade over Walker, but I can't see why the Marlins would agree to trade him unless they feel he is getting too expensive. If there is a way, there is your lead-off hitter. But we are getting off topic. Who would you build around?

I would gladly trade Walker + Hill for Hunter + Crain; and then turn around and spin Hunter + cash + Brian Dopirak to Florida for Juan Pierre. Crain is an excellent reliever. Wow, don't you think you are overpaying for Pierre? Now if the Cubs could get Castillo, that would be another story. And, I agree, Crain is a great reliever.

I don't often respond to my own posts, but I figured I would put out a pre-emptive post. I figured many fans would respond to the quote above by mentioning Rafael Furcal's name. If the Cubs spend the money on Furcal, then they might not have enough left over to get someone like Giles and Burnett or Giles and Damon or Giles and whomever. If they don't, who is going to hit lead-off? Furcal isn't that great of a lead-off hitter and would be very expensive. But that's not the worst of it. The biggest negative impact if the Cubs signed Furcal would be felt over the next 4 years because he would be blocking Cedeno from being the Cubs everyday shortstop during that time. This is important. Having a good and inexpensive SS is a huge advantage for a team. It would allow the Cubs to spend their money keeping players like Z, Prior and Lee for many years as well as adding players like Burnett, Giles and Dunn when the need/opportunity arises. Cedeno playing a solid SS for the Cubs in the future is huge, and signing Furcal would squander that opportunity before the Cubs had a chance to use it. Having Cedeno play 2B doesn't save the Cubs the same amount of money because, as Walker as shown, it is fairly possible to sign a productive 2B for only a few million. But productive SSs are much more expensive. That's why allowing Cedeno to grow into the starting SS and having him on the cheap for several years would be such a big opportunity for the Cubs to put together and keep together a team that is capable of winning it all over a period of several seasons.

I'm not thrilled with Hunter, but short of signing Johnny Damon, he might be the best CFer out there. The problem with Hunter, of course, is that he isn't a lead-off man and bats righty. Damon is a good lead-off hitter and bats lefty. However, I'm not sure the Cubs have the money or fortitude to sign Damon and Giles, and Giles is clearly the better hitter. As far as Crain goes, I'll take him happily. If the only way I can get Crain is by taking Hunter, then I would have to strongly consider it. I don't know why you would want to trade Walker. The Cubs need left-handed bats and OBP, and he provides both. For a 2B, his power numbers are pretty darn good. If they aren't going to upgrade the offensive production at 2B by trading him, then why do it? As far as Nomar is concerned, I agree completely. It would be a one-year deal. Cedeno would be ready to take over in '07 and would be worked in regularly to keep Nomar fresh. Nomar's upside is too great to let him go especially if he is willing to sign that kind of contract. It makes too much sense not to do it, plus there aren't any better alternatives out there for the money.

Obviously, I build around Lee, Ramirez and Barrett. I'm also sold on Murton to be good with a chance at very good, but I would try my best to have as strong of a 4th OFer as I possibly could. I also pick up Walker's option. That leaves CF, RF and SS to be filled. Of the pitchers, clearly the Cubs should build around Zambrano and Prior. Maddux will be back unless the Cubs ask him to retire which I don't see happening. Williams has an ERA under 4 while in a Cubs uniform, and he is still cheap, so I bring him back and build around him. That leaves one rotation spot open. I try to fill with Burnett. I realize that he is an injury concern, too. But if the Cubs can afford to sign him, I think he is worth the gamble. If he stays healthy and Wood returns strong, the Cubs move Williams to the pen and have him ready to step in if/when one of them goes down. If Burnett is healthy but Wood gets relagated to the bullpen, then the rotation is still 3 deep for the playoffs. The same holds true if it is the other way around. The danger, of course, is that if both are injured, the Cubs have spent nearly 20 million dollars on two DL spots. However, the potential payoff is high enough, and, once Maddux is gone, Burnett is the type of player that can help the Cubs win a World Series over the long haul, that I think it is worth the risk of injury. In the pen, I build around Dempster, Ohman and either Novoa or Wuertz but not both. That leaves 3 open spots, or 4 if for some reason the Cubs decide to go with a 7 man pen again. I give Williamson a strong look next spring and try to acquire two proven relievers under 30. As far as the bench goes, Blanco is already under contract. I bring back Hairston and build from there. So I would keep: Barrett Lee Walker Ramirez Murton Prior Zambrano Williams (Maddux) Dempster Ohman Either Novoa or Wuertz but not both. Blanco Hairston Elsewhere on the roster but I'm not sure exactly where are Cedeno and Wood. With Williamson and Patterson being given every chance to make the team next spring. Who do you build around?

The moves made this off season are being partially decided right now with the performances being given by Murton, Williams and others. Who should the Cubs keep? Who should be counted on to perform and, thus, built around this off season? Should Wood be counted on to be a part of the rotation? Matt Morris had this same surgery done a year ago and he bounced back nicely, but the histories of Wood and Morris are quite different. Should the Cubs make a play for Burnett? Murton has made a believer out of me. Are you ready to give him LF? Williams has turned things around lately and appears a decent option at 5th starter. Did Cedeno show you enough before breaking his hand to give him the starting job at SS? Is Nomar worth signing to another one-year, incentive-laden deal? Are you willing to trade Cedeno or move him to 2B if you sign Furcal? If so, can Cedeno be counted on to produce similar numbers to what Walker has put up the last couple of years. I don't think so. Who plays CF? The Cubs can't trade Corey for very much right now, so the smart play is to rebuild him. That starts in winter ball. If he opts not to play winter ball, the Cubs can't afford to wait until spring training to find out if he can hit. Can the Cubs win a world series with Hairston playing CF? Who would you acquire? Sign Damon? Trade for Hunter or Cameron? Is Greenburg ready? Please don't tell me that you think Pie is? Do you bring Burnitz back? I don't think so. I think RF is the best chance the Cubs have to improve their offense this off season. I think the two best options are signing Brian Giles or trading for someone. We haven't even touched on the bullpen. Re-sign Dempster? I do. Who else do you build around? Ohman? Probably. Wuertz and Novoa? One or the other, but preferably not both. Make a big play for B.J. Ryan? If possible. Trade for someone like the Twins' Jesse Crain? Depending on the price, yes. The Cubs have a lot of questions and should have a lot of payroll with which to play. Who do you build around?

Well said.

That comment wasn't for the rookies, it was for Walker, Lee, Burnitz, Barrett, etc. If he is going to win and play the kids, he is going to need the non-rookies to play with the necessary motivation. Doesn't that make sense? At the time he said the quote, Cedeno and Murton would be the only rookies being given semi-regular playing time and the rest of the line-up would be filled with vets who might indeed be experiencing a loss of motivation at this time of year given the team's record. This is why I think the whole quote made perfect sense and was very clear, an oddity for Dusty, that's fo sho.

Wow, I can't believe you just wrote that. He had already answered the question in the first sentence of the quote. He said, "I'm trying to do both". That is about as clear and direct of an answer as one can give. The story he told is clearly related to the topic of the question which was winning when you are basically out of the hunt. So I still don't see where any confusion lies. I freely admit that I love a good debate, especially when the odds are against me because the people's minds are already made up. But that doesn't mean that I'm repeatedly bringing up a discussion of semantics. This is a clear cut case. His quote made perfect sense. Several people criticized him for saying it. Done. The question of bias vs. overvalue only becomes semantics if you aren't one of the fans who believe that Dusty has some irrational prejudice against rookies, irrational like racism and sexism are irrational. If you aren't one of those fans, then basically we agree. And any time you argue with someone with whom you agree, it is going to be over semantics. When I read the word "biased", I equate it to "prejudiced" which I take to mean that he has a preconceived negative notion of a rookie. Like, "This guy sucks 'cause he's a rookie". And I don't think it is like that with him. I think he is just scared, so he goes with the safe bet. Of course, I would rather he didn't. I never responded to, quoted or even referred to any of your comments in this thread, so I have always been a little surprised as to why you chose to engage in this conversation because I think we basically agree. About the only thing we didn't agree on was whether that quote was clear and easy to understand. And finally, I never created any, what was it that you wrote, degrees "in which people use words to describe Dusty's shortcomings". I simply asked that people be accurate and respectful. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

I went to a majority of the Cubs games in California this season and the Cubs fans made their presence felt big time. I'm not saying we had anything to do with it, but...

Disclaimer- The following is the most ridiculous post I have ever made: I exaggerated nothing because I was addressing those who accused Dusty of being stupid based on this quote not just those that related the quote to Dusty's performance. That was clear in my original post and it is clear now. Go back and read it again, if you must. I don't have a crusade or a campaign, but I'm flattered that you think this is one. Amazingly, you still stand by the notion that Dusty's quote doesn't make sense. So I guess, I am going to have to break down why it makes sense before you are going to understand where I am coming from and retract the accusations you have made of me. I can't believe I actually have to do this. This shouldn't have to be done. The question to which he was responding reads,"Should the Cubs evaluate kids at the expense of trying to win?" That's clear, isn't it? But since Dusty didn't say this part, I won't go into explaining it. Dusty's primary answer is, "I'm trying to do both". The longest word in this answer is six letters long and I think we all know the meaning of the word "trying". This sentence couldn't possibly be misconstrued. He is trying to win and evaluate the kids at the same time. Also, he doesn't believe that winning and evaluating talent are mutually exclusive as the person who asked the question seems to. The author then chose to include this little story about something Dusty learned from Steve Garvey while playing with him in Los Angeles. Dusty said, "It's a situation where you have to find something to play for." The "its" in this case is referring to the situation the Cubs are currently in. A team in the final month of the season that is basically out of it. The reason why he mentions having to "find something to play for" is because the normal reason to play (getting into the post-season) has been removed, so you need to replace it if you are going to play with a similar level of inspiration or passion. Now he didn't use any abnormal words, and I think all that stuff is pretty obvious to any baseball fan. I am assuming that all of this explanation is pretty insulting to your intelligence at this point, am I right? I know it is to mine. Dusty continues, "I learned that from Steve Garvey". Here the word "learned" is the longest word at 7 letters, but there are still no unusual words. It is a very clear sentence. He learned about finding something to play for from Steve Garvey. Dusty continues, "On days he had a migraine and didn't feel like playing, he played for a sick child or an older person in the hospital or something." So on days when Garvey's passion for playing baseball was removed by, in this case a migraine, he would play for someone less fortunate than him. This would remind him of how fortunate he was to be playing baseball for a living, and it would improve his attitude about playing that day. The longest word in that sentence is 9 letters long and is the word "something", not exactly difficult to understand. The sentence structure is clear. The "he" in this case clearly refers back to Garvey from the sentence before. The verb "played" refers to the act of competing on the baseball field, but any fan knows that. This is really simply stuff, isn't it? Well, that's it. That's all he said. Its self-evident to me that this particular quote is easy to understand and straightforward. Can anyone break down this quote and show how it doesn't make sense? CP20, I think you are better than this. I don't think you or anyone else needed that broken down for you at all. So, please, I'm asking you nicely for a second time, either break down this quote and show how it doesn't make sense or retract your accusations about me.

How is "Dusty is biased against rookies just because they are rookies" any different than "Dusty overvalues major league experience"? Clearly if you overvalue major league experience, then you are predisposed against, otherwise called biased against, people who lack that experience. Yes, but it isn't because of some irrational hatred or bias against rookies, like racism or sexism, that he makes the decisions he does, and that is often what fans have accused him of. He makes his decisions out of fear, it seems, instead of faith. He goes with what he knows and trusts. If he thinks his best option is a rookie, he'll start him. He has already proven that. Its just that his thinking and decision-making process is flawed.

Logic takes a vacation every time someone defends the dood. Who is defending him?

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the Dusty quotes will continue to have their own threads because they usually back up the opinions of those who want him fired, like me. However, this quote does not fall into that catagory. I have explained why it doesn't. I noticed you did not attempt to explain why you think it does. Why not?

If you count calling him an idiot as wondering what he was saying, then yes. Oddly enough, I addressed only one person who did that, so in this, we agree. And I certainly never questioned his/her right to relate this quote to Dusty playing young players. So I don't know why you brought up the poster's right to do what he/she did. However, what I did mention was that I found it odd that someone would use a quote in which Dusty says he is trying to play the kids and still win to support their position that Dusty refuses to play kids. I addressed this in the previous post. If you have a case that supports this accusation, please make it. If not, please retract the accusation. This example doesn't work. Dusty is paid to win, supposedly. It is his job to determine which players will give his team the best chance at winning that day. It is his job to make value decisions. No one is paid to be a racist or a sexist. It is no one's job to make value decisions when it comes to someone's race or sex. Actually, this example serves to illustrate the point I'm making rather well. If you are the boss of a company and you feel that the best salesperson you have for this certain account is a white male, does that mean you are racist or sexist? No. It may mean, as in any value decision, that you are more familiar with the strengths of that one sales person (who happens to be a white male) than you are with the strengths of the rest of the sales people. And, naturally, you have more trust in that which you are most familiar. But you are not basing your decisions on the mere fact that they are white or male. That is why I think it is inaccurate to say that Dusty is biased against rookies simply because they are rookies. He is just trying to win and going with what he knows best and trusts most. Is this flawed? You betcha. Should he be fired for it? Yes. I understand why you would see it as a matter of degrees or semantics. But I call it meaning what you write, being accurate and fairly representing the views of the people you criticize. And being tired is no excuse. I'm tired of it, too. So I call for him to be fired and I list my reasons. But I don't have to misrepresent him, twist his quotes around or call him almost every despicable name allowed on this message board to do it. Do I challenge the great fans on this website to have well-supported opinions and to be respectful in how they present them? Yes. Am I wrong for doing so? I don't think so, but I'm open to hearing from those who have a strong case for why I am.

More than half the posts in this thread are wondering what Dusty was saying, with some cheap seats references thrown in. I count exactly one poster relating this quote to Dusty playing young players, which he certainly has a right to do so. Maybe your knee-jerk reaction to a Dusty quote thread so it supports your "posters go too far with Dusty hate" theory is what should be questioned. All it comes down to is semantics. Dusty doesn't like to play young players. No, he overvalues major league experience. That person is a racist/sexist. No, they overvalue being white/male. It's just a matter of degrees, and many people take it further than you personally like, because they are tired of the same nonsense for the last 2 years. I didn't want to have to spell things out like this, but now I feel I must. Clearly, CP20, I was not addressing the fans in this thread who were not trying to use this quote to whip Dusty Baker. Why bring up the posts that were about Cheap Seats? Why not address the other ones? Do you think they were justified in what they wrote about Baker given the quote in question? You accuse me of having a knee-jerk reaction to a Dusty quote thread. That would imply that you think my post is completely unjustified. Do you? If so, please make a case to support such an accusation. Here is my case. My post was about how some fans are going too far in finding things to hate about Dusty Baker. There are plenty of reasons to dislike him as it is, but this perfectly clear quote, a rarity, it seems, for Dusty, shouldn't be one them. Here are the responses I am referring to. The only problem with this post is that Dusty's quote actually makes perfect sense. And then it starts. Now, this perfectly lucid quote is in no uncertain terms "idiocy". Now, I don't begrudge anyone their right to express their opinion on a board like this. I love it when they do. It usually makes for some interesting conversations. All I'm saying is that this Dusty quote isn't unclear, dumb, stupid or otherwise. And yet, some fans seem so ready to hate that they will even use quotes with nothing wrong with them as reason to do so. There was a quote a week ago or so about Dusty wanting more walks. We should be rejoicing about that. Hey, maybe he is learning something. Or good, finally he is coming around. But instead... Clearly, the reason why I accused the authors of the above quotes of having knee-jerk reactions is because the quote makes perfect sense and yet they reacted as if it didn't. That's seems like a pretty open and shut case to me, but maybe I'm not seeing something that you are. So please, make your case why this quote doesn't make any sense and that I'm the one who has the knee-jerk reactions, or kindly retract your accusation.

Is it even worth calling out everyone who needlessly attacked Dusty Baker in this thread? Would they even open their minds long enough to hear a differing opinion backed with solid logic? This quote of his actually made perfect sense, wasn't stupid at all and quoted him as saying that he is playing the kids while still trying to win. Someone in this thread actually used this quote to try to bolster their argument that Dusty never plays "kids". Does Dusty overvalue major league experience? I think so, yes. Does he say stuff that is convoluted and unclear? Yeah. Does he deserve to be fired as manager of the Cubs? I think so. Do the overly-negative, knee-jerk reactions to the Dusty quote in this thread serve as evidence supporting my position that some fans take their hatred of Dusty too far sometimes? Clearly.

Yeah, but those numbers at AA are right up there with everybody else on the same list. Doesn't that qualify as a rebound from a bad start?

I'll second that.

Your choice of response has proved my point. I'll be happy to let the jury decide this one.

So in essence, if we are not looking at the players ceiling or future, then these aren't lists of the best prospects, but of the best players of 2005. I know it seems like a nitpicky thing, but I'm just trying to understand what you are asking for. A top prospect by definition is someone who has a good future ahead of them regardless of how they played this season. A top player of 2005 is something quite different. In that case, considering the levels at which they played: 1. Cedeno 2. Murton 3. Patterson 4. Sing 5. Pie 1. Nolasco 2. Hill 3. Pinto 4. Marshall 5. Gallagher

I have presented what I think are several well supported rebuttals and have requested hard facts and numbers in return. I have gotten anecdotal evidence and projections that you still haven't supported with any sort of track record besides your word that they are reliable. Despite the rebuttals that I think are well supported in fact and logic, you still reply with the same stuff. Unless, there is anything else, I think it is time to put this one to bed.

No. I'm not delusional. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me delusional. If you have read my posts you would know that I have logic, reason and stats supporting all of my opinions. However, there is one difference between you and me. I regard my opinions as just that. I don't pretend to know the truth about much of anything. If you want to have a discussion about the facts in this case and begin to sift the hard facts from the twisted quotes and views of Baker moves from a certain point of view that are being treated as if they are hard facts, I would be happy to join you. I dont need to read Dusty's quotes to make a conclusion. I have watched almost every game this year and can tell you that Dusty has played the vets much more than the young players. He takes them out of situations to pinch-hit a vet which usually turns out to be ugly. When a player goes down he has preferred to go to a veteran off the bench and let them start over the players coming from the minors. Even with Murton lighting it up how many times did we see others start in LF over him? We are already out of the playoff race yet we still are not seeing a consistent lineup out there. If your opinion is that Baker does not discriminate so be it. My opinion is that he does indeed discriminate the young players and has been doing it all year. I never said that you needed to read Dusty's quotes to make a conclusion. I don't know where you are getting that. It seems that you missed my point about the bias some fans, maybe you I don't know, bring to how they interpret any manager's moves including Dusty Baker. My opinion is that Dusty overvalues major league experience and therein lies the source of what you see as a bias against rookies. And, finally, I appreciate that you stated your opinion as an opinion.

No. I'm not delusional. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me delusional. If you have read my posts you would know that I have logic, reason and stats supporting all of my opinions. However, there is one difference between you and me. I regard my opinions as just that. I don't pretend to know the truth about much of anything. You say that Dubois clearly outhit Holla during spring training. While I too wanted to see Dubois get the nod, the facts do not support that he clearly out hit Holla. Hollandsworth hit .349 while Dubois hit .288 but with more power. I think you could make a case for either one, but neither one "clearly outhit" the other. You state with such certainty that Cedeno should have been brought up and inserted in the starting position because he was tearing up AAA. I think you could make a case for that being a good idea with the way that Neifi had been hitting at that time, but there is no clear cut method of showing that Cedeno would have for certain performed much better than Neifi did during that same stretch. I would think there is a lot of evidence that shows many rookies struggle at first when thrown into a starting job and could benefit from being exposed gradually to major league pitching. So both of your examples that you gave are not facts that expose Baker as some fool. They are interpretations as seen from the point of view of one who already considers Baker a terrible manager. But if you looked with no bias of your own, you may consider these moves reasonable. After all, its not like he never gave Dubois the starting job when Hollandsworth struggled. Or never played Cedeno when he was brought up. If you want to have a discussion about the facts in this case and begin to sift the hard facts from the twisted quotes and views of Baker moves from a certain point of view that are being treated as if they are hard facts, I would be happy to join you.