TheDude

You have to be joking. I'm just going to assume the sarcasm smiley here.

Read the thread topic title. Then read the the first post.

As utterly random and baseless as you can get. jason shmidt http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schmija01.shtml Curt Schilling http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml Randy Johnson http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsra05.shtml Pedro Martinez (see years 2001 and 2006) http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martipe02.shtml The infamous Ernie Brogilo (traded for Lou Brock) http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/brogler01.shtml You can look up the rest. The number of innings and the increased likelihood of injury is self-evident. Sorry, but what does this prove? Am I supposed to now go and find a half-dozen players with 3000+ pitch counts over several years who haven't been injured? This is the most irrational way to present an argument you could come up with...you're just plucking random pitchers to try and support a claim.

As utterly random and baseless as you can get. Do you need a study to prove that a team should be careful with a highly valuable asset like Zambrano? Especially when the situation can allow a team to rest him? If you are going to claim that his pitch counts over the course of 4 consecutive years have a direct causal relationship to higher injury risk, then yes, I'd like to see the evidence that this link exists. Throwing out random pitchers names is irrelevent. You have to show this relationship exists in a meaningful way for me to believe Zambrano is going to suddenly breakdown next year.

Good to see that any of the responses posted backed-up the claim with any qualitative evidence or study. This is purely speculatitive analysis, and in some cases: As utterly random and baseless as you can get.

The threat of injury doesn't disappear after you've pitched for a couple seasons. Nor does it magically appear due to pitch counts that have been consistant across numerous years.

Many reasons: writers like hustle and trying, and you can't write a story without saying Pierre hustles and tries hard while Ramirez doesn't writers like picking on the "new" baseball where homeruns are big deals, and they really like guys who just put the ball in play writers like the bunt and stolen base and think of them as lost arts pierre played on a WS winner, and Ramirez has played for the Cubs and Pirates. If there's one things writers will fall back on more than anything else, it's the notion that players are winners or losers depending on which teams they've played on. None of those reasons account for the real, primary reason: Ramirez is a run prodcuer and Pierre is not. When Lee went down with injury, Ramirez (and nobody else really) was expected to pick up the slack as the primary run prodcuer, which he didn't. I'm not justifying the argument either way, that's just my view on the their reasoning.

Why would Zambrano very suddenly be affected by pitch counts? He threw 60 more pitches total in 2006, than 2005, and has pretty much averaged the same number of pitches per year for 4 straight years. Pitch count micro-management has validity for a kid in his first or second year, if coming from an environment of short seasons and fewer games. I'm not sure how it enters the conversation for a guy who will be in his 6th year as a regular.

Does this correlate to early break-down in the US? I'd really like to see a study on this, because it seems to me that the Japenese pitchers that do make the leap are durable, perhaps because they are more conditioned to higher pitch counts. I think it speaks to TT's point about a drop off in performance after a couple of years in MLB. But drop-off in production doesn't equate to injury. I'd want to see more definitive evidence that high pitch counts lead to injury or have a tangible correlary to production drop-off.

If Soriano is acquired and plays CF as indicated by several sources, he would project behind only Carlos Beltran for highest OPS from a CF in baseball (assuming 2006 numbers). If he is acquired to play 2B, he projects on par with Utley as the top OPS 2B in baseball (again carrying forward 2006 numbers). Not so impressive as a LF, but still top 5. Soriano definately projects in the top 30 OPS production for all hitters, regardless of position, at his current pace. So I think Soriano qualifies as a stellar bat. Lee likely falls in the top 5 for OPS production for all LF, and top 40 for all hitters. Assuming he can keep his current pace. But Lee doesn't bring as much to the table as Soriano in terms of versatility or tools. It depends on your view of 'stellar'. I'm guessing top 40 OPS probably falls under Hendry's definition.

Does this correlate to early break-down in the US? I'd really like to see a study on this, because it seems to me that the Japenese pitchers that do make the leap are durable, perhaps because they are more conditioned to higher pitch counts.

Agreed. I would have no issues with Tejada as a Cub in a more accurate market. But Prior is severely de-valued with the injury risks, and better off in a Cubs uniform, and the Orioles seem to think Tejada is worth twice as much as everyone else thinks he's worth.

Soriano's production seems to defy convention, which is an indication he is a hitter with comfort issues. His worse years were in Texas, one of the best hitters' parks in baseball, in a line-up full of support in the way of good hitters. During these years he hit was placed, as convention dictates, in an RBI production role. He moves to Washington, one of the worst hitters' parks in baseball, in a line-up with anemic support, and absolutely thrives. Back in the leadoff role, his numbers return to the Yankees years numbers, and even exceed. It doesn't make any practical sense, and logically Soriano should be a run-producer. But his career numbers and production make it clear: regardless of the ballpark or the support around him, his best spot in the lineup for maximizing production is at leadoff. Provided the team doesn't have a hole in the 3-4-5 spots (and the Cubs would be just fine with Lee, Ramirez, Barret), there isn't any real reason to force Soriano into a run-production role. If the Cubs pursue him, it's likely in his comfort zone role at leadoff IMO.

Would Schmidt or Zito and Suppan Do the trick? Zambrano Schmidt/Zito Hill Suppan Prior/Guzman/Marshall/Miller/Wood I don't have the answer beyond Schmidt. It's intriguing to see the Cubs are looking at several Japanese pitchers, and I'd wonder how any of them slot in at the 4 or 5 spot of the rotation. But yes, beyond Schmidt, one more solid arm is necessary.

I don't know how many different threads this argument needs to span before it gets read, but this is a poor observation. Please go and study Sorianos career splits and then reconsider your opinion. His best numbers are continually demonstrated at leadoff, with mediocre to poor numbers in the 3 and 5 hole (respective to what you want out of those slots). The big-time flashy numbers that make Soriano attractive occur at leadoff, and it is easily his best lineup split for his career. Sometimes a spade is a spade - Washington figured that out.

You can definately win with that lineup (the first posted) if you're starting pitching is in the top of the NL. Add Schmidt and one more quality arm, and that lineup works.

I don't recall any speculation that Hendry was interested in Beltran for the number of years he was asking at the time he was a free agent. He was never a strong target of the Cubs organization that year. I don't get where the 'revisionist history' part comes in.

What are you basing this on? Lee got a fantatsic deal. Ramirez is well paid. The offer to Furcal was market value (nobody expected the Dodgers to crazy with their offer). If he says these guys are in his sights, and news reports show Soriano as his number one target, why disbelieve it? Just out of natural Cubs angst? Others have posted what I was going for. If the Cubs overpayed for Beltran they would have not traded for Pierre and the list goes on. IMO, when you have a talent like that you do what you have to do to get him. What stinks is that this year their are not any impact hitters out there in the free agent field. I don't recall Beltran ever being a Hendry target - he was a fans target, but not a Hendry target. There is a big difference. I don't think it's an accurate criticism to say he isn't willing to pay for the player. The criticize is applicable if it is changed to say Hendry doesn't usually target the big names, because that is often true. The only bigger names he has targeted he has signed, or was sorely outbid and it was good thing. But that sample is very small and mostly in-house. But when he has targeted a name, he has shown diligence in trying to get that name. The difference this offseason, we as fans hope, is that the organization is truthful when it says it is specifically targeting the big names. I think Hendry's ability or inability to sign the big FA is more of an unknown than anything.

What are you basing this on? Lee got a fantatsic deal. Ramirez is well paid. The offer to Furcal was market value (nobody expected the Dodgers to crazy with their offer). If he says these guys are in his sights, and news reports show Soriano as his number one target, why disbelieve it? Just out of natural Cubs angst?

I was impressed by the overall press conference as I saw it on ESPNews during lunch. The three things that impressed me the most were: - specific mention on hitting philosohpy of swinging at strikes and swinging in hitters' counts. - specific mention of pitchers' philosophy of throwing strikes. - specific mention of believing in young talent. These are the things I wanted to hear. Cut down the pitching walks and increase the offensive walks. Trust the young players in the middle of the proven talent.

His career numbers certainly suggest that is the case: Leadoff - 2052 ABs, OBP .340, OPS .884 3rd spot - 602 ABs, OBP .313, OPS .773 5th spot - 575 ABs, OBP .316, OPS .836 He doesn't have more than 300 ABs anywhere else.

I'm not sure either, but I think the point is that he supposedly is most comfortable there, and would most likely insist on hitting there if he were to sign. If Lou really is a guy that demands team play who can handle these guys, eventually you might see him drop to 5th, where he belongs. It's also where he has historically produced the best numbers. His Texas years were down years for him, and those were the years he didn't leadoff primarily. There is something to be said for comfort level with hitters. In the Cubs case, putting Soriano at the top of lineup doesn't create a hole elsewhere, so it's amove they can live with and hopefully maximize Soriano's output.

You really think the Yankees would trade Arod for a downgrade at 3B and one reliever? I'd do it and I think the Rangers would, but I don't know if the Yankees would. Don't forget in this scenario the Yankees free up 10+ million to put towards Schmidt or Zito. whether the Yankees like or not, trading A-Rod is not about equal value, it's about budget realignment.

So Hendry should be left wondering until March whether he should acquire a platoon partner for Jones? You sound like a guy who does his Christmas shopping on December 24th. To help you better read what I wrote.

I don't think anybody actually expects to land all these players. The point is, they sure seem bent on getting at least one of them, and doing so improves the team. It isn't fair to put the GM in a no-win situation. The Cubs have a reputation for not pulling the trigger on the big names. Hendry appears to be trying to change that reputation, with Lee's deal, Ramirez's deal, and the rumors he is floating in the media. Obviously we all have to wait and see what happens, but it is exciting to see the Cubs pursuing some major talent.