CubfaninCA

The bottom line is the amount of hyperbole in this thread has been hilarious. You don't know what he would have done. Farns was a fantastic reliever for the Cubs in 03, and a big reason why they went anywhere. The Farns myopia's funny as well.

However you want to compare those two, it doesn't really matter. Farnsworth was far and away better than any reliever the Cubs had this year, Dempster excluded. The closer/non-closer talk is worthless. Set-up men are valuable, dominant set-up men making less than $2m are a great asset. Making trades and signings based on BS like clubhouse chemistry is absolutely moronic and self defeating. So when Theo traded Nomar last year it was moronic? If chemistry's irrelevant, lets trade for Milton Bradley, Jeff Kent and Jose Guillen & see how that goes next year. Tell the Angels and White Sox that chemistry doesn't matter.

How many saves did Farns have as a Cubs?? How many years was he in Chicago?? Dude would have never got over the hump in Chicago. He wouldn't have came close to doing what Dempster did this year in a Cub uniform. He was better than Dempster was this year in '03. The whole "Farnsworth never lived up to his potential" thing is nonsense. He was and is a great reliever, but when he had a less than spectacular '04 and got hurt, people make up nonsense about him being an alcoholic or a headcase or stupid or whatever. He was NOT better than Dempster this year so what are you talking about? Do not count the games that Demspter started. Farnsworth '03 0.88 WHIP 10.85 K/9 2.56 K/BB .196 BAA .580 OPS against Dempster '05 as a reliever 1.25 WHIP 8.17 K/9 1.96 K/BB .218 BAA .580 OPS against Yes, Farnsworth was better. Why are we comparing 2003 numbers with 2005? I was talking about 05 vs 05, but even so Farns whip in 03 was 1.17 according to yahoo with a era of 3.30. So I personally would rather take the lower ERA above the other stats. I apologize, I read the wrong column calculating his WHIP and then got a bunch of critical errors before I had to leave. ERA for relievers isn't a great metric, their smaller number of IP can skew it, and ERA in general has a lot out of the pitcher's control. But, if you want to compare 2005 v. 2005: Farnsworth: 2.19 ERA, 1.01 WHIP, 11.19 K/9, 3.22 K/BB, .180 BAA, .542 OPS Against Dempster: 1.85 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, 8.17 K/9, 1.96 K/BB, .218 BAA, .580 OPS Against Outside of a small advantage in ERA(which has problems like I mentioned earlier), Farnsworth is clearly more effective, just as he was in '03. The bottom line is that Farns wouldn't have done this w/ the Cubs. If Farns was the closer in 2003, the team woulnd't have made the playoffs and Bartman would still be living in Chicago.

I guess then the question is... Why? Head case. See yesterday and Mitch Williams for more.

If the Yankees don't win it all, I can see them shaking things up. However, they don't have much to deal. Sheffield refuses to be traded. Matsui's a free agent. Giambi's health is still a concern, and he has an awful contract. I guess they can trade Posada, but he may not bring much. Jetah's pretty much untouchable. ARod's the guy who could go. He's having another tough series, and the fans aren't that fond of him. Of course, ARod could refuse a trade too.

It is a good point you make, the Cubs have no one of real value to trade for Abreu. But what pitching do we have that would cause the Yanks to give up A-Rod? Kerry Wood. NY has the money to gamble on him. Do you think he would waive his no-trade clause for NY? I mean if that trade could be done, as much as I hate A-rod, I think you do it. If they give him an extension on his contract, maybe. It could be a good deal for Kerry, given his health.

It is a good point you make, the Cubs have no one of real value to trade for Abreu. But what pitching do we have that would cause the Yanks to give up A-Rod? Kerry Wood. NY has the money to gamble on him.

How many saves did Farns have as a Cubs?? How many years was he in Chicago?? Dude would have never got over the hump in Chicago. He wouldn't have came close to doing what Dempster did this year in a Cub uniform.

What do the Cubs have to trade for Abreu?? Philly has no need for Walker. Patterson's trade value is pretty low. Very doubtful Kerry Wood would waive his no-trade clause so he could play for the most fickle fans in baseball. I guess Williams could help them. Mitre and Welly, gmab. Jmo, but I think the Cubs have a better shot @ ARod than Abreu or Brian Giles. NY may be looking for more pitching, as Johnson isn't dominant anymore and Mussina will be 37. NY has the money to offer Wood an extension, and the Cubs could send ARam to NY as well. I'd hope the Cubs wouldn't deal ARam for Abreu. ARod's a different story. EDIT: IF the Cubs miracuously got ARod, they could sign Bill Mueller to play 3b. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see Boston trade for Thome & Abreu.

And another thing.... Thankfully yesterday's implosion wasn't in a Cub uniform. That would rank up there w/ Bartman. Glad to see Farns elsewhere.

Farns = Mitch Williams There will be flashes of greatness, but he just doesn't have the head to go w/ the arm. Atlanta can develop everything except relief pitching.

Read recently that Brad Radke could be available. He's due $9 million next year. Why would Webb be available??

Varitek's one of their leaders and a real productive catcher, so that imo wasn't a poor deal. Clement & Renteria are the one's to question given that money could have went to Pedro.

Jmo but if Boston repeats this year, the 3rd and 4th year are irrelevant. If they were a mid-market team, I'd agree w/ them not gambling on a 3rd or 4th year, because if he doesn't perform, those seasons are probably over. However, Boston has the 2nd biggest budget in baseball and can afford having a guy not performing who's paid $14 million. Of course, I have a bias toward really good starting pitchers.

Boston is one of the few teams who can risk resigning someone for a deal they're not necessarily worth. Great pitcher's are pretty scarce and I think they'll regret letting Martinez walk. Theo did make a good pickup in Wells, who's a solid #3 in a series. I think the Pedro and Giles situations are similar. You gotta roll the dice on a 4 year deal w/ both. Yes Pedro's ERA went up quite a bit last year compared to previous seasons, but it was 3.90, which is good for the AL. He pitched 217 innings too. I just wonder if Theo's kicking himself for signing Renteria to a huge deal when they have Hanley Ramirez waiting in the wings.

Considering Schilling's health @ the end of last year, they should have went to war w/ something better than that. They obviously have the money to blow. If this is what they go w/ next year, they'll be in the same situation next year as well. They didn't win anything until Schilling was added to Pedro.

Clement, Wells and Wakefield is a pretty weak threesome to throw @ the ChiSox. I'm not sure of the details between Boston and Pedro last offseason, but they sure could have used Pedro in the White Sox series. Nice to see a good pitching team sweep a big budget great obp team.

Also, he's more likely to make it from 1st to 3rd on a single to rf, and then score on a shallow fly to the OF. Something like this become more beneficial in the playoffs when runs typically become harder to come by. Giles had an ops of .941 w/ men on 1st from 2002 to 2004 also. I have no idea what 2002-2005 factors out to be, but looks like his numbers go up w/ someone on 1b.

Ok, just looked up Giles numbers from 2002-2004 w/ men on first. In 271 at bats his batting average is .358. Perhaps this year's a fluke?

Well, I think some weight has to be given to Furcal being a switch hitter & Giles being a righty. Furcal ops is about the same against righties and lefties over the past 4 years. Giles ops was about the same this year, but there was a 80 point gap in ops from 02-04. Not surprising, Giles hit lefties better.

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles?? Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy. No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story. What other story is possible in the face of those facts? You cannot possibly still maintain that Giles was helped by the presence of Furcal on the bases, can you? Don't certain guys hit certain pitchers better than others?? Doesn't substance = looking @ all the factors. Maybe Giles hits better in these 100some appearances w/out Furcal on. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe these pitcher's bare down more though. Maybe these pitcher's are guys Giles has more trouble with?? Maybe I'm just needling you on your use of substance cause you look up a few stats and think you have all the substance. :o I might buy that argument if the stats were even close, but they're not. Giles is basically horrible with a runner on first base and Furcal is the logical person to have represented the bulk of those 108 men on first. I've also done this for people batting after Juan Pierre and came to the same conclusion. As well as other speedy leadoff guys. It just doesn't help the people that bat after them. It is a myth that the speedy basestealer distracts the pitcher and helps the following hitters. If you don't believe me, I suggest spending some time with ESPN's splits data and microsoft Excel some evening. Hmm maybe pitchers do bare down more. I'd like to see more than a year of Furcal and Giles together though. They played together for a while now. I may look into this some evening. Wish my computer @ work was faster. :(

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles?? Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy. No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story. What other story is possible in the face of those facts? You cannot possibly still maintain that Giles was helped by the presence of Furcal on the bases, can you? Don't certain guys hit certain pitchers better than others?? Doesn't substance = looking @ all the factors. Maybe Giles hits better in these 100some appearances w/out Furcal on. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe these pitcher's bare down more though. Maybe these pitcher's are guys Giles has more trouble with?? Maybe I'm just needling you on your use of substance cause you look up a few stats and think you have all the substance. :o

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles?? Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy. No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story.

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles??

So is the economist/mathmetician argument ~ speed's not useful??