Outshined_One

Nothing like calling play action when it doesn't work! WAKE UP YOU MORONS!

QUIT DANCING YOU PANSY.

Neil Rackers: Headcase

This reminds me way too much of the worst parts of the Minnesota game. RUN. THE. BALL!

This is hideous.

Rex Grossman is bringing sexyback? hahahahahaha

I never denied that. There are guys in the HOF who didn't have the terrific talent level of their HOF peers, but still managed to play at a high enough level to be considered among the elite. Now, whether or not you believe these guys were rightly inducted into the HOF is another matter altogether, but guys like Ozzie Smith were still very good players who were helpful to their teams. However, for every Ozzie Smith, there are countless Neifi Perezes, Augie Ojedas, Adam Everetts, and so on. The reason why I equated scrappy hustlers with judy hitters is mostly because most of those judy hitters fall into that scrappy hitter category rather than any other category in baseball, be it big boppers or whatever. And now we're getting into another area altogether, although you make plenty of valid points between these two quoted parts I agree with in full. I think this particular part of your argument is problematic. You're making it sound as if Manny was the one solely responsible for those two runs because he misplayed two balls. He certainly deserves some criticism for screwing up, but the rest of his team let him down by allowing those two runs to score, be it because other defenders screwed up or because the pitcher threw the hitters bad pitches. Also, that loss would have been significantly worse if Manny were replaced with an average player. Instead of scoring three runs, Boston would in all likelihood and probability have scored two or fewer runs. Yeah, maybe one or two of the opposition's runs wouldn't have scored if they had a league average LF out there instead of Manny, but I go back to my argument regarding the other Red Sox also being responsible for those runners scoring. I think we're arguing over semantics at this point, though. Let's just agree we would rather the Cubs keep Aramis Ramirez, would rather have A-Rod over Eckstein, and agree that generally talent is more important to a team's and a player's success than hustle save for certain situations. Sound cool? 8)

Not really. Merchandise revenue is shared nearly equally among the teams, so there's little merchandising revenue to be gained. The only marginal revenue oppornunities are higher TV ratings or the notion that a high profile signing will support higher ticket prices. Would the Cubs get money from broadcasting games in Japan?

Nah, he and Pawelek should be starting in Peoria.

I need 40 points with Thomas Jones, Cedric Benson, and Anquan Boldin left? I got it in the bag. 8)

He's another power prospect out of the mold of Brian Dopirak and Ryan Harvey. He'll get lots of Ks and not much in the way of BBs. He plays 1B and is more athletic than Dopirak, from my understanding, given that the Cubs tried him out at 3B last season and that he had 11 steal attempts (7 successful) on the season. In other words, he's going to have to make plenty of adjustments as he faces better and better pitching. He has a chance, but has a long way to go.

I was basically phrasing my response to two general things which have been coming up recently: 1) The complete outpouring of people claiming that the Yankees had no fire, hustle, or desire to go out there and win. These people claim that this is the primary reason why the Yankees lost to the Tigers, rather than because the Tigers' rotation and bullpen was worlds better than the Yankees' or something equally reasonable. 2) The number of people who have been saying that Jim Hendry shouldn't bother re-signing Aramis Ramirez if he opts out due to Ramirez's character (inability to step up while Lee was down, his nagging injuries, his lack of hustle, etc). Somehow, these people have blinded themselves to the fact that Ramirez has been one of the most productive guys on this team during his time here. Heck, I'm sure plenty of people on this board would take Ramirez over Derrek Lee. In my years of watching baseball, I've seen guys who seem to have tremendous heart, character, and emotion go out there and stink up the joint. I've also seen seemingly lazy, disinterested, despicable, and unemotional players have Hall of Fame careers. Maybe those guys were not getting the most out of their talent; I can't say for sure. The fact of the matter is, those guys are among the all-time greats. Even if they only put 75% of their effort into everything, they still managed to outproduce the scrappy hustlers by incredible amounts. While there are certain situations in which hustle can be the deal-breaker, I think those situations are, on the whole, limited. From what I have seen in MLB, it's rare that you will have two players with comparable tools and production, but differing levels of effort. Most of the time, there's enough of a disparity in talent/production to merit playing one over the other. I don't think hustle is something that should be the primary thing a GM or a manager should look for in a baseball player. I don't think hustle is something that trumps production. This doesn't just apply to All Star and HOF-caliber players; it applies to every level of a team. I just don't think a number of people get that.

I agree with your general point. However, this is something that concerns me and I know this doesn't apply to you in particular. It is relevant to the discussion. I think a number of people place too much emphasis on hustle. I believe it's important to any sport and that all guys need to be motivated and give their all, don't get me wrong. Yet, there are a number of people who gush over the scrappy hustling types despite the fact that these guys are simply not productive, not even if they spent hours studying tapes, spent extra time in the cages, and so on. Guys like Neifi Perez and David Eckstein come to mind. Yes, both probably try their hardest out there, but that doesn't make them good. That does not justify starting them over guys who perhaps do not hustle quite as much, but are much more productive. The same can be said when you go in the other direction, namely with guys like Aramis Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, and so on. From what a number of us see, these guys do not put their all into the game. They don't run out every ground ball. They look disinterested, like their hearts might not be totally into it. People will accuse them of just being there to pick up a paycheck rather than take a leadership role, hit in the clutch, show emotion, or whatever. The fact remains that people will focus so much on hustle that they overlook the fact that these guys are really, really good players. Anybody who would rather have a team full of David Ecksteins rather than a team full of Alex Rodriguezes is simply delusional and kidding themselves. That extra bit of spark would not have helped Alex Rodriguez make contact with a wicked Jeremy Bonderman slider. That extra bit of hustle wouldn't get Aramis Ramirez an extra base on nearly every routine groundout he's ever hit into. I'd hope these guys are putting their all into their jobs, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather not have that desire cloud my judgment regarding reality.

How many of their top guys were acquired via trades using prospects from their respective farm systems?

Out of curiosity, beyond Willis, who else does Girardi have a bad pitcher abuse track record with?

If you're referring to the article I think you are, that was one of the worst pieces of sportswriter tripe I've ever read this side of Jay Mariotti.

The TB situation was such a weird one that I don't know if I really think he should be judged based on it. Between being in the AL East, having a lot of questionable players up and down the roster, craptastic pitching, and having some commonly shaky/injured rookies, I think that would be a situation where pretty much any manager would suck wind. The better gauges would be his time with Cincy and Seattle, imo.

Frankly, I didn't want Brenly for the most of the same reasons I didn't want Piniella (see: pitcher abuse). However, Brenly mentioning and giving credence to OBP at least shows he has something resembling an open mind about the matter. Whether or not that actually is the case remains to be seen, but it's more than Piniella's ever shown.

I'm hoping he doesn't pretend signing A-Ram is just as good as signing a top-tier FA, thereby washing his hands of any bats on the market.

I don't care what an unbiased report says. Fact says, Kent and Bonds got into a fight in the dugout, during a game. Fact says, Mercker, Walker, Alou and others got into arguments with the broadcast team. Hawkins trashed the fans and media in Chicago. Jones trashed the fans for booing. There were also speculations in the Baker era that Wood and Prior smashed Sosa's boombox. Baker himself was rumored to be feuding with Patterson, Sosa, Hawkins, and others in private. Baker being a calming influence is so unbelievably false. You can't pick and choose your argument. I take from your post that you don't blame him for not controlling Sosa and Bonds because of their egos (which, I'd be willing to give you that since Sosa was made a monster before Baker and Bonds is well, Bonds). But if he can't calm down the star, he can't properly discipline the rest of the team. You also don't blame him for the stuff I mentioned, which shows a group of veterans all running wild and complaining about any and everything while the team was getting beat. I think you're both right. Baker doesn't run a tight ship. He's very hands off with his players, thinking that it promotes clubhouse chemistry. From what I've read from a number of the Cubs players, the players seemed to really like and et along one another. There's a loose atmosphere and guys usually don't fight with one another. However, unless he has some player leadership, this gets out of control. Guys won't be held accountable for their actions, whether it's slumping or getting into really stupid conflicts with people outside the clubhouse, because Dusty either ignores it or implicitly encourages it. Cripes, Dusty himself embodies this! We've all seen his quotes where he'll make any excuse under the sun to deflect blame from himself. His players are the exact same way unless there's a clubhouse police officer who holds guys accountable. Why do you think Hendry was bemoaning the lack of Eric Karros in 2004? Jeff Kent is one of those guys, by all accounts. Guys like Bonds have massive egos and usually don't take well to being policed by fellow players. Two personality types like that can and will clash. Dusty allowed that exact kind of behavior from both of them and it led to that confrontation. So, Dusty runs a clubhouse that's so loose and hands off that his players will basically run amok without veterans policing the team.

See, it'd be one thing if Piniella were willing to actually TALK about OBP. The problem is, he's one of those guys who discuss things in terms of what he sees. Guys who work the count and don't bunt to give up outs don't necessarily lend themselves to being high OBP guys. Lou would still bat a guy like Pierre leadoff because his average is so high, despite his .330 OBP. He has a reasonable average, he can foul off a bunch of pitches, and he doesn't strike out very often. If you're a traditional baseball guy, you like Juan because he is a prototypical leadoff hitter in terms of his tools. However, as we all saw, his success is heavily tied to his batting average, which can be an incredibly fickle thing. However, plate discipline is not something that fluctuates nearly as much. Guys with low IsoD don't go into a slump and say, "Okay, now I'm going to work the count, draw walks, and get the pitch I want to hit." The ability to work counts and draw a good number of walks is not something that's like an on-off switch. It's rare for guys to break out of their mold in terms of K/BB or IsoD, depending on your preference. That's basically the problem I'd have with Piniella. I think he'd advocate a less aggressive approach at the plate than Dusty's crew of nitwits, hence why I'd be fine with Chambliss and McLaren. However, he would still focus too heavily on BA when this team already has a number of guys whose BAs are fairly empty (Izturis, Cedeno, Jones). I worry that his philosophy would not change that enough to make this roster offensively competent. I haven't even gotten into the way he treats pitchers yet. That's the thing I'm reeeeeeeeeeeeally worried about.

Brenly has actually acknowledged OBP and pitcher abuse during his tenure. Lou has bemoaned OBP and said that baseball needs more "thinkers". If Piniella brings Chambliss and McLaren with him, this might be a good move for the offense.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

I think Leyland just took a few bong hits in the clubhouse.

Hey, it worked for the White Sox and Tigers. Why not us?