NoDak

OK, just a hypothetical here to see where people on this board (generally a competent group over all). Please give your answers AND an explanation why so not just the answers but rationale can be discussed: You will have a team with OPS+ and ERA+ average of 110 so the average is equal. Would you rather have the "range" from 80-150 in ERA+ and OPS+ or whould you rather have a range from 105-130. We will assume same age, injury history, contract status, etc. Further, please specify if you would choose differently for pitchers as opposed to batters. Not noting it would be considered that you would use the same rationale.

I don't know if I would make this kind of deal. The Marlins are masters of producing major talent and then trading them just as they become expensive for somewhat less talented players that will be MUCH less expensive. We'll be acquiring Cabrera about the time he will get VERY expensive to retain. Besides, the Marlins are going to want significant talent for him and I am not willing to give up 3 average players for 1 really good player (because then I have to find replacements for those that I gave up). I personally believe we will go further with a team of average to somewhat above average players (OPS+/ERA+ 100-115) than a couple of really good players and then fill-ins for the rest. A line-up with fewer black holes, even at the cost of fewer great players.

While I do not have a problem with the Rockies winning in particular (I live on the ragged edge where Rockies country meets Twinland), I think this is a prime example of why I do not like the Wild-card. The Rockies are not the best team in the League if they do not win their DIVISION. They got hot at the right time. That being said, "Go Rockies. Yay Helton."

I think Marmol was used the best possible way this past year. He was brought in in the inning that we really needed to get through with minimal damage. His herky-jerk delivery would be a nightmare for control and health if he were a starter. Leave him where he is.

All three players are under Brewer team control for a while. Braun was just called up mid season, so Brewers control his rights for the next 6 years. Fielder and Hart, I'm guessing are under control each for at least the next 4+ years. None of those players are going anywhere. I think it is a little more complex than "6 years from when they are first pulled up." My understanding is that teams have x number of years from when they first sign a player to put him on their major league roster or risk losing him in the Rule IV draft. Then, after putting them on the 40 man roster they can only be there for y years (or something like that--which is why it was important to Prior and Samardzia to get "major league contracts"--then they are on the 40 man roster) but it is 6 years of major league service on the 24 man active roster (so a player getting shuttled up and down only gets credit for the time they are actually on the 24 man roster (which is why many teams leave players off their 24-man roster until May or June). I may be misunderstanding it, though.

I don't know if this has already been posted, but here is some new stuff from Lou on pitch counts. http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070227&content_id=1819061&vkey=spt2007news&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc I do hope that the pitchers (and batters) listen to this. I would love to see the pitchers get out with 12-14 pitch innings and one 18 pitch inning in a game and have the batters routinely get 16-17 pitch innings with an occassional 35 pitch inning. 8-)

While I am certainly no expert on pitching or hitting, I don't know that a "hanging" breaking ball would be a good thing, necessarily. Hitters could relatively easily adjust to it and it would get absolutely crushed.

The difference is usually the "throws off mound" are in the first week in April/May and the "throws simulated game" is in May/June. For the past 3 seasons he has started out WAY later than his compatriots.

I definitely agree with the gist of your post but, just point of fact, he ran into Giles, not the other way around. Prior was the baserunner.

Wasn't he a shortstop (and not particularly good, defensively) in NYY farm system and moved to 2B because "Yankee god" Jeter was locked in at SS?

Here is a stat I think is an indicative, if crude, way to judge him: In games his team won: 56 games...371.1 IP...2.52 ERA In games his team lost: 54 games...275 IP...7.76 ERA While these are not "standardized" or "adjusted for league/competition, the vast disparity says, "When he is good he is VERY GOOD, when he is bad...well...that is why God made long relievers." http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=marquja01&year=00

some article (Daily Herald?) said Prior was ahead of Miller, who is in the long-toss phase of his rehab. didnt say where prior was, though. how is miller rehabbing? he was pitching in the big leagues in september? But not at 100%. few pitchers pitch at 100%. as far as i know teams dont rehab players (especially pitchers) in the majors. It also doesn't make sense that Miller was pitching in the majors in September and is only doing long toss now. That would be the case if he'd suffered another injury. Maybe. He might have came back early to prove he could pitch and earn a decent 2007 contract. He just might be taking it real slow but you're right it is possible he has had another setback. That was my understanding too. He was "auditioning" for a contract in 2007 and CHC was taking advantage of a "throw away" month to see if Miller might be someone to bring back for another year or cut ties with him completely (and also justify giving a $1M contract to a guy who otherwise would not have pitched due to rehabbing a surgery the team knew about).

by "his" do you mean Steve Stone? If I'm reading you right, it sounds like you're suggesting Stone may eventually join Kasper in the booth? I like BB, but that would be interesting, though many on here would be disappointed. I like Len and Bob a lot, but Stoney will always have a place in my heart...I grew up with him and Harry, I hate that he's not there anymore, and I really hate how he left. The thing I liked about Stone was that, unlike most,other color men he would actually give insights into the game at hand and explain strategies, rules, concepts and ideas rather than ad nauseum stories reliving their "glory days." He would explain the next 2-3 pitches in sequence that would lead to a K or how to induce the ground ball to 2B. I remember one time he explained that "all the cubs need" was for the next batter to get on base and then have Rey Sanchez hit a home run and the cubs would be within 1 run. It actually happened and I think Stone was so stunned that his comment actually came to pass that he didn't say anything the rest of the inning.

some article (Daily Herald?) said Prior was ahead of Miller, who is in the long-toss phase of his rehab. didnt say where prior was, though. Well, at the very least, we've known Prior has been on the "throwing off the mound" phase since mid-January. That's definitely an improvement from past years. Prior even standing on the mound is an improvement over the past few years. I really hope those three can all come back and come close to their old form. One, it would be the best thing that could happen to the Cubs, and two, it would make all the people who said their careers are over eat crow. Let's fantasize here a moment. Let's say Wood, Prior and Miller are all 100%. We would have a rotation of: Zambrano, Prior, Hill, Miller (or switch Miller/Hill), Lilly. Bullpen of Ohman, Cotts (swingman), Wood, Howry, Dempster, Wuertz, Eyre. We could trade Marquis and pick up some of his contract to allow us to get "uneaten" sunflower seeds for him. Ahhh, if only that could actually happen.

I would settle for a closer similar to Smoltz, but that's just me. 8-)

"GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FIRST POST." 670 the score radio I know at noon every day Mike Murphy talkes about the cubs ALOT. He focuses on the cubs mostly because he is a cubs fan. People will tell you he is stupid and a moron. But I find that unfair. He is just a crazy cubs fan. Maybe not stupid and a moron, but he finds these little details and blows them up into a holy crusade. I've never seen a guy who can take something as minor as which foot a guy led off first base with, and turn it into an hour of ranting and raving about why the manager should be fired. It's patently ridiculous at times. That said, I still listen to him, so Murph wins. Mike Murphy is ignorant and awful. He knows nothing. He's a knee-jerk, conventional wisdom spouting idiot. His is far and away the worst radio show I've ever heard. His opinions and questions are consistently dumb. He's an embarrasment. I wish he weren't a Cubs fan. He makes us all seem stupid by association. Hey, chill out. Atleast he's nice to cubs fans. I don't know about you but I never disagree with whoever he is spouting on about (MacPhail, Hendry, ect. .) I don't care if he's nice to Cubs fans. I don't care for his shallow and pedantic rants about Andy MacPhail ("F-A-I-L"). I don't care for his bits. I'd rather listen to someone intelligently breaking down things and using logic and reason to analyze a situation, than listening to a visceral knee jerk rant that never scratches the surface of insightful. I am not familiar with the specific program in question, but my experience of most radio talk/call-in shows is that they are rarely truly insightful (especially in the sense that you are talking about). They are usually aimed at the lowest denominator and also try to "stir the pot." If he can rant long enough about something inane then, eventually, someone will call in and get into an "argument" with him. People will tune in to listen to the polemics and then his producers will be able to go to advertisers and point to how many people are listening. I don't mean to be condescending, but that is my experience with most of the types of programs beind described. I have found that this is one of the best places to get information for 2 reasons: 1. Lots of sources!!! There are lots of people who, thankfully, are willing and able to comb the internet and other souces for info. Then, almost always, they post a link (or apologize and explain when they cannot) so I can read the original article to evaluate it rather than just reading someone spouting off about "I read somewhere..." 2. REACTIONS!!! Often I find out more from reading the threads as other people often have insights into the pros/cons of various items. Taken as a whole, this MB is pretty insightful. Rarely does something go completely unnoticed.

"GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FIRST POST." 670 the score radio I know at noon every day Mike Murphy talkes about the cubs ALOT. He focuses on the cubs mostly because he is a cubs fan. People will tell you he is stupid and a moron. But I find that unfair. He is just a crazy cubs fan. Maybe not stupid and a moron, but he finds these little details and blows them up into a holy crusade. I've never seen a guy who can take something as minor as which foot a guy led off first base with, and turn it into an hour of ranting and raving about why the manager should be fired. It's patently ridiculous at times. That said, I still listen to him, so Murph wins. Mike Murphy is ignorant and awful. He knows nothing. He's a knee-jerk, conventional wisdom spouting idiot. His is far and away the worst radio show I've ever heard. His opinions and questions are consistently dumb. He's an embarrasment. I wish he weren't a Cubs fan. He makes us all seem stupid by association. Hey, chill out. Atleast he's nice to cubs fans. I don't know about you but I never disagree with whoever he is spouting on about (MacPhail, Hendry, ect. .) I don't care if he's nice to Cubs fans. I don't care for his shallow and pedantic rants about Andy MacPhail ("F-A-I-L"). I don't care for his bits. I'd rather listen to someone intelligently breaking down things and using logic and reason to analyze a situation, than listening to a visceral knee jerk rant that never scratches the surface of insightful. I am not familiar with the specific program in question, but my experience of most radio talk/call-in shows is that they are rarely truly insightful (especially in the sense that you are talking about). They are usually aimed at the lowest denominator and also try to "stir the pot." If he can rant long enough about something inane then, eventually, someone will call in and get into an "argument" with him. People will tune in to listen to the polemics and then his producers will be able to go to advertisers and point to how many people are listening. I don't mean to be condescending, but that is my experience with most of the types of programs beind described. I have found that this is one of the best places to get information for 2 reasons: 1. Lots of sources!!! There are lots of people who, thankfully, are willing and able to comb the internet and other souces for info. Then, almost always, they post a link (or apologize and explain when they cannot) so I can read the original article to evaluate it rather than just reading someone spouting off about "I read somewhere..." 2. REACTIONS!!! Often I find out more from reading the threads as other people often have insights into the pros/cons of various items. Taken as a whole, this MB is pretty insightful. Rarely does something go completely unnoticed.

Speaking of Trachsel and STL wasn't he the one that gave up #62 to McGwire?

I agree with most of that except going up there and taking 7-8 pitches late in the game. I think it's more valuable when your wearing out the starting pitcher then a reliever. Mainly because there's 5-6 left in the bullpen. I think it depends on the situation too. If Hill is up and a man is on second and two outs plus the pitchers spot is up next, I want him to drive the ball no matter what the amount of pitches are. Exactly. A walk doesn't do you much good in that situation. Neither does swinging at a pitch out of the strikezone when the pitcher won't give you anything to hit with the ninth spot in the order due up behind you. No one is saying to go up and look for a walk. But if you're not given a good pitch to hit, take your walk and let your teammate do his job. Let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples here. Get a hit: I would rather have it be on pitch #7 than pitch #1 (but pitch 1 would work too). Get a walk: I would rather have it happen than not Get an out: I would rather have it happen after 6-8 pitches than 1-3 Summary, I would rather have a guy who takes a lot of pitches. Being patient does not, to me, mean not considering swinging at a fastball down the middle unless it comes on pitch 4-7 but, instead, not swinging at a knee buckling curve on pitch #1 simply because you are afraid to hit when behind in the count. As a ballplayer once said, "It is better to be 0-1 than 0-for-1." If it is something you can't do anything with you are better off letting it go and seeing if the pitcher can repeat it. Most relievers can't.

I personallylike players like Bobby. I want a guy who will go out there and, hopefully, take 7-8 pitches on a regular basis. I look at it as a colossal waste of an AB for a player to go up there and get out on 1 pitch. If a pinch hitter takes 5-7 pitches I look at it as a relatively successful AB. Besides, I would definitely want at least one guy who had a solid OBP coming off the bench. I agree that what I would want on my bench would be 1 back-up catcher, 2 sluggers (back-up corner infield/outfield), an OBP guy (to pinch hit for the pitcher when leading off inning late in game), and super-sub utility guy who specializes in defense.

I will admit freely that I am not good at translating minor league stats into major league ones and generally shy away from it when I can rather than flaunt my ignorance. I will bow to your judgment on that. The reason I mentioned sample size is that, while he has over 500 PAs they take place over about 4 years. I wonder if he is a guy who might do well for the first 125 PAs and then drops off from there (precipitously). Your point about his minor league numbers does bode well, though. I would like to see him on the roster.

I don't remember "cutting" Bobby Hill. Jake is a Pirates fan. But, the Pirates didn't cut him either. They traded him to the Padres. He was traded after we DFA'd him. Technically that's a cut. :-) Did you get something for him? If so, technically, that's not a cut. :wink: Define something. :-) Clayton Hamilton. Apparently SAN couldn't put together enough used sunflower seed shells. I honestly don't mind having Bobby on the team. A back-up infielder with a career OBP of .343 in 500+ ABs. I can live with that. I wish we had more of a sample size, obviously, but overall I think that is a decent signing. Especially compared to Cedeno and Perez.

The problem is he was willing to use Barrett AND Macias potentially leaving himself VERY exposed. I wish he had been more conservative about "saving" his emergency catcher...you know, just in case. 8-)

I don't remember "cutting" Bobby Hill. He was involved in a trade in 2003 involving an aging outfielder and someone else I can't remember (probably "bagging groceries" somewhere now anyway). PIT may have "cut" him, but I don't think we did. I could be wrong so please refresh my memory. While I did not have any personal experiences with Hill, I think most of the "attitude" problems are more an offshoot of the fact that he was drafted in the first or second round and refused to sign. The following year CHC drafted him but he was looked at as "tainted goods."

LOL. I have read that some GMs do try to put together pitching staffs (staves?) that would do well against their batters and vice-versa. Maybe Hendry will try to raise Dempster's "value" by showing him off to opposing scouts in intra-squad games this Spring Training! :wink: