Outshined_One

agreed. problem for the giants is, the phillies can hit and they can't. The Giants have two tough LHPs (Sanchez and Bumgarner) who'll cause issues for the Phillies. I think the Phillies will win the series (in 6), but it'll be closer and lower scoring than people expect.

I think everyone saw that coming, including Favre, who called that in the huddle.

According to fangraphs, DeWitt is a 2.4 WAR guy in his career. Plus, it's worth pointing out that in 2008, when he posted a 1.7 WAR, his wOBA was a paltry .319. Most of his value came from his really good 3B defense that year.

That was the Soriano offseason, in fairness. Plus, Jacque Jones signed after the 2005 season and Izturis was acquired in the Maddux deal at the 2006 deadline (ugh ugh ugh ugh).

If you pick a metric that takes some measure of defensive value into account, how big is the gap? Depends on whether or not you think DeWitt will improve defensively, considering 2010 was his first year in the majors full-time at 2B. This past season, UZR was not a fan of how he performed in the field. Now, granted, considering the guy is a plus defender at 3B, you would think that those tools would translate to 2B, given the proper amount of time and coaching. I think it would be a reasonably safe bet to say that he'll be a better defender than Uggla going forward. How much better is a question up for some debate.

Any interest in trading for him?

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4074/img021201.gif

Does Todd Collins win the award for the worst single game performance by a Bears QB in the Super Bowl Era?

How not to onside kick.

I was getting on the train at Roosevelt about two hours ago when this massive group of people came up the stairs, decked out in Polish gear, face paint, the works. Most of them were singing. A few of them were blowing vuvuzelas. I'm betting at least half of them were Americans of Polish descent. Traitors.

agree 1000%. that will pay off big in the long run, as long as you're hiring decent people to scout the amateur talent and then coach the guys after they sign. Don't forget being willing to fork over money to sign players. Another $1m - $2m would go a long, long way.

The goggles + goatee look in his Game Day picture is fantastic.

Is that a volleyball net? :-s

I think they need to come up with a new formula. So all no-hitters are automatically better than games where a pitcher gave up a hit? Not all, no. But Halladay's no-hitter IMO was better than Lincecum's 1-hitter. That bum Halladay should have struck out more batters. NY Times' take.

I insist on this response because I have actually seen Vitters in person and I have had the pleasure of speaking to people who know way more about baseball than I do about Vitters. In the times I saw Vitters, I rarely saw him extend his zone and chase bad pitches. He clearly had enough knowledge of the zone to keep from swinging at pitches in the dirt. From my understanding, as I did not see him in the FSL or SL, his problem has been with borderline pitches and good pitches in the zone. As Vitters has advanced and adapted, he has become much better about recognizing those pitches. However, we have only seen short stretches of that because of the Cubs' insistence on rushing the guy for whatever reason. I will whole-heartedly agree that, at a similar age, Aramis Ramirez was a better prospect than Josh Vitters. Ramirez had a fantastic season in AAA and a nondescript cup of coffee in the majors. At 20/21, Ramirez was more advanced than Vitters is when it came to plate discipline. However, also like Vitters, Ramirez was rushed, jumping from High A to AAA to the majors in one season. I am willing to argue that Ramirez's struggles in the majors were much like Vitters' struggles in the minors; both men had difficulty adjusting to a higher level of competition and needed time to make those adjustments. Given time, both men were able to adapt their games and succeed. Vitters' problem is that the Cubs have rushed him to the point where it's difficult to tell from a statistical standpoint whether or not Vitters had a hot streak or whether he finally figured things out. In my opinion, when he was with Peoria over his hot month, he had figured things out at that level. My firm belief is, while Ramirez was more advanced than Vitters at the same age, Vitters has the comparable raw tools he needs to become an Aramis Ramirez-like hitter. For clarification purposes, realistically speaking, I have an enormously difficult time seeing Josh Vitters become Aramis Ramirez. Defensively, the nagging injuries and the way the Cubs are handling him in instructs and in the AFL lead me to believe he'll be moving to the OF or 1B. I think he's a good enough athlete to play 3B effectively, but for whatever reason his reflexes and footwork seem kind of...off to me. As a hitter, there's enough to like to make me think he could be a league average bat at 1B or in the OF, but there's enough to dislike to make me wonder whether he'll end up being a RH power hitter off the bench. With that out of the way, though, I believe he still has the physical and mental tools needed to do what Aramis Ramirez has done. The odds of him developing those tools to reach that point are minuscule...but there's still a chance.

You're right. He's an abject failure who will never amount to anything. My bad.

I think the best the Cubs can hope for with Soriano is that he posts a strong enough 2011 season that some team would be willing to take him on from 2012-2014 in the following offseason. Another healthy season with production like 2007/2008 would go a long, long way. The Cubs could be able to trade Soriano if they eat a decent chunk of the (guh) $54m owed to Soriano over that stretch and take a bad contract back in return. However, the words "sunk cost" start coming to mind with Soriano.

Ramirez's years in Pittsburgh tell a very different story, though. In the minors, it is true that he had good plate discipline and K/BB, but during his time with Pittsburgh, he racked up quite a few Ks while having trouble drawing walks. It wasn't until 2004 that he started getting a handle on his Ks in the majors. Vitters has yet to demonstrate the ability to keep Ks down while drawing a respectable number of walks over a consistent stretch, but the question was about pure upside, rather than what realistically can be expected of him.

Guh. 10/6 From the comments: 10/7 From the comments:

According to ESPN's Game Score, Lincecum (96) just had a better game than Halladay's no hitter (94).

Derrek Lee looked like he had no idea what was coming on that strike three.

So it's just assumed that Vitters has the highest upside? How high is that upside now? I know people raved about his raw abilities and how even though he might not walk a lot he might put together one of those rare high average, high power, low walk careers. But we know he's not going to be Vladdy. He's not even going to be Aramis. What is his upside, and is there really nobody else in the system that's higher? Is he a worse hitting Adrian Beltre without the defense? There's no question he has to stick at 3B to be considered to have any chance at upside, right? I'd disagree that Vitters' upside is the highest in the system, but I'd put him in the top 5 for that (behind guys like Lake and Archer). Vitters' stock is down, but he was very young for AA and the Cubs' handling of him has me wondering whether we'd be talking about him as the top prospect in the system had the Cubs left him in the FSL. Moreover, while his plate discipline leaves something to be desired, he's always had a good eye...but an impatient trigger to go with that eye. It's also worth remembering that he is the best power hitting prospect in this system by a good margin. His upside is probably somewhere in the Aramis Ramirez range, maybe a tick below that, depending on whether he becomes more selective. If he moves to 1B or the OF, his upside diminishes. I think his athleticism should be good enough to make him an above average defender at those positions, plus his bat should be roughly league average at those spots.

Brett Favre has his hands full and is trying to get some time in with the guys.

Can't fault them for that; lots of people are in love with him. He offers an intriguing ceiling to go with the floor of a solid everyday 2B, in my opinion. I'm not worried about him sticking...but that's me. He's not exactly an exciting prospect, but there are plenty of reasons to like him. Guyer was the most surprising name on this list, to be frank. The guy went completely bonkers in the second half, but he's always struck me as a 4th OF type because I'm not sure he's got the range for the center or the bat for a corner. Who knows, though?

Link Pretty much confirms what everyone here knows: the Cubs did a better job than any team in MLB when it came to wasting money.