SouthSideRyan

What did Karros do? I don't remember that Similar thing, took a full page ad out in the Trib, thanking Cubs fans for a great year and said what an honor it was to be a Cub, how much he enjoyed it, etc.

that just makes him a exceeding larger injury risk. Why? Gambler's fallacy? It's not like he's 23 years old. He's past the age where pitchers are at most risk. Obviously, you don't ride him like a mule just because he's 28 years old, and I'd still monitor him like I would most pitchers, but people have been predicting injury flameouts for Z every year since '04.

Z's never made less than 30 starts in a full season and has never spent significant time on the DL.

he was never given the chance to adjust Read your PM's. My PMs haven't worked for a while I guess I'll just have to share what I have to say to you with everyone. This is a discussion board, not an argument board. If you can't find a better way of DISCUSSING baseball, you will not be long for this place. Everything has to be a huge argument with you, and it really needs to stop. You've been warned enough times already to tone it down. I'm not sure how many more times you will get. Haha, what??

Steve Rosenbloom is a [expletive] moron.

I actually was worried we were gonna do something stupid like non-tender him.

Pie went on to OPS ~730 after that start, while never getting consistent playing time. Sorry, 770ish. I don't know why, but I cut it off at his demotion before.

Their top 9 CFers were: 9) Kirby Puckett 8) Jim Edmonds 7) Duke Snider 6) Ken Griffey Jr. 5) Joe DiMaggio 4) Tris Speaker 3) Mickey Mantle 2) Ty Cobb 1) Willie Mays I really liked that they had Speaker so highly (right where he should be I think). Shows that they put at least some thought into it. Jim Edmonds number 9? Really? He was excellent in his prime, but his prime was during the steroids era and his peak years were mysteriously short and came in his early 30's. I might take Kenny Lofton over him, and Lofton definitely isn't among the top 9 CFs of all time. Jim Edmonds was awesome, and should probably go to the hall of fame. The Kirby Puckett listing is the one that's outrageous, not Jimmy.

Are you saying those two are similar? Isn't there a significant difference in evaluating those lines in relation to the strikeouts? All else being equal (which is the case here at least in the stats listed) I thought making contact was better than not. Not the type of contact Edmonds was making. In that first couple week stretch, Edmonds looked just as pathetic as people say Pie did. EDITED: to remove snark

Pie went on to OPS ~730 after that start, while never getting consistent playing time.

Everyone likes to forget that Corey was above average for a season and a half in '03-'04 before he utterly collapsed in '05 too. Not saying Pie is Corey, those comparisons always pissed me off, just saying Corey Patterson isn't this pox on baseball that everyone wants to make him out as.

They're inconsistent without Lighty. Evan Turner is a stud. BJ Mullens (#1 recruit in '08 class) has not done much of anything. Lauderdale is the big man to worry about. Tis is probably gonna get abused on the boards again. Illinois: 71 OSU: 58 ETA: Forget what I said about Mullens, he's got double digits in each of his last 4 games.

I don't think the Cubs' flame-out in October should be used to criticize a decision that was made in April. That's a weird way to look at things. Pie was completely overmatched at the beginning of the year. He could barely make contact with the baseball; even a mediocre breaking ball was an adventure for him. Once Lou saw that -- whether it was in 40 at bats or 400 -- he needed to pull the plug. I think you're failing to draw a distinction between giving a player a chance to who looks like he could contribute, and just giving a guy a chance regardless of how he looked. Pie didn't show anything in the majors last year that indicated he should be given more at bats. I've said it before: Lou has his faults, but judging talent isn't one of them. He does a pretty good job of slotting in the right guys to play. Much was made of the private instruction Lou was giving to Pie while he rotted on the bench for those 2 weeks or so. Pie got a few ABs here and there(still far less than Reed Johnson) following the private instruction and looked much better. Then he was sent to AAA.

I really hope the Cubs aren't making decisions based on how good their team was 10 years ago.

I'd bet a lot of money that Z makes 5 before he's gone.

Of course, had they played Pie last year he might have developed enough to make signing Bradley unneccessary. Had they given Pie a real chance he may have shown enough to where they could trade him and get much more value in return. That being said, the Cubs handling of Pie last year had more to do with off the field issues than anything else. I understand that, but hindsight being 20/20 Hendry actually made the right call last year for last year's season. It would be hard to imagine that Pie could have come close to the Edmonds/Johnson platoon. Hendry made a great (albeit lucky) move by picking up Edmonds. Pie didn't need to match Edmonds/Reed's offensive #s to be comparable because he had a big defensive advantage. Even considering defense, he didn't need to match their value because him being a league average player for us last year would be a better scenario than what Edmonds/Reed gave us last year because we'd have Pie for a long time for very little. You have to have cheap players somewhere, and the Cubs never even gave a chance to one of their best chances.

Nobody would've had a problem with the Cubs trading for CF help in July if Pie still played as he did. The issue that we all have is that the Cubs offense had a stud offense last year and a team that was coasting from June on. It'd be hard to find a better way to give a young player a chance to grow into a position than the '08 Cubs, but in their standard Cubly way, they cut bait on a player because he wasn't Albert Pujols in his first 50 ABs.

Except last year when they were about 80 games behind us. i don't remember that. i remember us winning an obscene amount of games and them still being within shouting distance most of the year. they were still a threat last year. luckily we had a ridiculous season and didn't have to sweat it out until the end. if they won 86 games with the roster they had last year and a ridiculous amount of blown games by the bullpen, then you'd be dumb to ever write them off before a season. I wrote them off last year before the season. I was not dumb to do so.

That would put Purdue at the same record as last season with a 1-1 BTT showing. That was good for a 6 seed in a worse Big Ten. As far as the breakdown from last year, they had 4 sub 100 losses, but they had 3 top 25 RPI wins and finished the year hot. Additionally, they placed 2nd in the conference. Those 2-8 teams are really close in the Big Ten, but 12-6 still isn't likely to do much better than 4th. I don't see 4 Big Ten teams getting protected seeds, but I haven't really looked too deep into who would be grabbing them so I could be off. Gun to my head I say a 5.

It's not like Kentucky is teeing off on great teams either. UK's beaten decent West Virginia and Tennessee teams and not much else in terms of wins. Their losses are a close one at home to a bubblish Miami team, a blowout loss at UNC, a tight one at a damn good Louisville team, and an embarrassing home loss to VMI. Florida has beaten a decent Washington team(whose resume looks a lot like UK's) and not much else. Their losses are a close one to a damn good Syracuse team and a close one on the road to a bubblish FSU team. Say you write off the UNC loss, cause that's expected of most teams. That leaves an advantage to Florida for their bubble loss being on the road compared to home. Give UK a slight edge back with their 2nd good win. Then you've got the VMI loss. It's a killer for me. I know it's a one time thing, and play it 10 more times(especially this deep in the season) and UK wins 9 or 10 of em. But I think rankings should be off of what you've done, not what you'd do today.

18. Guys who put up those #s in A ball at the age of 18 are few and far between. Half the guys his age are playing HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL

They're not looking so good tonight. Assuming KU can hold on tonight, aTm is really gonna need a win against UT. Their shooting has been horrendous. KU's defense deserves credit, but man, they look bad.

the vast majority of prospects ultimately are busts though. The vast majority aren't extremely well thought of. Vitters is much more highly regarded than most prospects. That doesn't mean he'll necessarily turn into anything, but he still has a greater shot than most. The vast majority of good to great teams out there get a strong aid from their minor league system. Unless you're the Yankees and can throw $250 million around, there are going to be spots that you must fill with cheap talent. That's where the farm system is most important. i don't disagree with any of that. you dont have to try and convince me of the importance of producing talent from the farm. i'm already convinced. but again, you dont let a kid who's never been above A ball (and frankly wasnt overly impressive in A ball) be a deal breaker in a potential jake peavy acquisition. I guess the biggest problem I had was that you seemed to not give Vitters any chance of being great - hence the Kevin Orie reference. The likelihood of busts is the reason you stack your farm as much as possible - in the event that a number of them bust. when we're talking about a guy who was fairly average in A ball, why should i give him any chance of being great? Because he was young (or very young) for A-ball and he has great tools. He's not a 24-year old college player toiling away in A-ball. I'm pretty sure he came out from high school and is just now 20 (or so). He's very young with great skills - he just needs to develop. Vitters won't turn 20 til August 29th. People who said he was average in A ball don't know what they're talking about.

Except last year when they were about 80 games behind us.