TheDude

There is already a 6 page thread on this link and web site. Of course, more people would know that if the the other thread wasn't titled, "Sounds Good To Me". At least you appropriately titled your thread.

So then why'd they throw Raffy under the bus? Does an independent 3rd party lab test the results, or do MLB employees? He was expendable and part of the reason why you all are disagreeing with me. You all can feel the way you want to obviously...I just think that MLB/players union are not being truthful about this. Cuse, I do think there is a little truth in what you say. I too find it odd that with the exception of Raffy, it's been all minor leaguers and fringe players. It wouldn't shock me if there was some sort of cover-up going on. The problem with a conspiracy theory is motive. Consider what MLB has to gain by protecting all-stars and then consider what it has to lose. It makes no sense.

But that doesn't make sense. If you don't want Lowe to pitch for your staff, you don't trade for him and put yourself in a compromising position trying to flip him. You are basically suggesting the Cubs willingly put themselves in a tough spot.

I don't think that makes it a joke at all. It proves that guys who are bubble-talents at the major league level are willing to cheat to try and push themselves just over the bubble. There are going to be far more people cheating trying to be the best than the best cheating.

Just curious, why does a story about Felix getting busted equate to the policy being a joke? Does it have to bust bigger names to make it worthwhile? I was wondering the exact same thing. I don't understand how Heredia's positive test makes the policy a joke . :-s Also, shouldn't there be a differentiation between the policy and the testing? Are you saying the testing is a joke, or the 10-day suspension? I thought it was agiven that most fans viewed the policy as a joke (specifically the days suspended).

Things generally happen for teams when they get people on base or successfully steal, regardless who it is. What matters when judging the individual player is the rate at which he does those things successfully. Not at all. That drags the conversation back to looking only at stats again. The whole point was that invidual stats like AVG/OBP/OPS don't tell the whole story in all cases. [edit]The end-game point being that a measuring a player's wroth to his team can't always be ascertained in the indivudal stat column. Win Shares aren't out yet for 2005 that I can find, but it is kind of like trying to evaluate at that level.[/edit]

in 110.2 innings at home he gave up 16HRs. In 111.1 innings pitching Away he gave up 12 HRs. Dodger Stadium didn't really help him much. Quick question about Dodger Stadium. I hear a lot of announcers talk about certain times of the day when it's a lot easier to hit a HR at Dodger Stadium. Has anyone else heard this? This year, Lowe gave 15 of those 28 HRs in just 6 starts. So it is a little deceptive. It is an indication that when he is off, he tends to get hit hard and blown out. When he is on however, it is very tough to go yard on him.

Labels are fun! Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles. I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success. I love it when arguments are supported with facts rather than unfounded rhetoric! :D It isn't rhetoric if you bother to look up some numbers. The White Sox had a higher winning percentage when Podsednik played than when he didn't, though the difference isn't staggering. But, in games where Podsednik scored, the difference is staggering: Record when Podsednik scores at least one run: 42-17 Record when Podsednik didn't score: 38-32 Also true when Podsednik steals bases: 30-10 Regardless of whether the White Sox had a good offense or not, it is very clear that the man creates energy for the White Sox, and when he is on base things happen for them.

Can we get thread titles that at least give some clue as to the topic? Thanks.

It wasn't the shot to the head that hurt his season. Clement was stinking up the joint throughout July, with or without the beaning (8.88 ERA). Matt just isn't a very good pitcher. He walks way too many batters and is overpaid. It might work out for him in Boston, where they can put up with his frequent blowup starts with an offense that mashes. But with the shaky lineup the Cubs continue to employ, you just can't have a guy who all too often gets rocked early. I do not want Clement back. Not because I dislike him, quite the opposite. He just isn't the right fit now. But, I'd contest the not a good pitcher claim. I think he is one of those guys who will "find it" for a season or two and put together Cy Young Award worthy numbers during the stretch. I know he is 31, which is old for that type of thing to happen usually, but it's just a feeling I have. Regardless, he isn't right for Chicago.

I'm not a fan of Bradley myself. But I believe I undertand the main point of supporters arguments, which would be: 1) Numbers 2) His mentality is supposed to be Dusty's specialty as a manager 3) Buy low. Dodgers do not value Bradley much, and his asking price is lower than his numbers would indicate.

This year was the first year in 6 years he has had less than 500 ABs. I'm not worried.

I understand the statement, but outside of Giles, who is out there to provide that OPS boost in RF? Obviously there are trade targets, but from a FA perspective, I'm not sure the answer is out there.

I'm not saying those people aren't upgrades. I just think that if that's all you do, and you make the mistake of settling for crap in RF again, the Cubs will be putting themselves in another sticky situation. Murton is no guarantee to put up good numbers (although I'm perfectly happy with going with him if the other spots are filled). Bradley is no guarantee to be productive for a whole year (in fact, the closest he ever came to a full season was 2004 - 141 G, 516 AB, .267/.362/.424). And I will always have questions about Castillo's ability to slap happy himself to solid numbers on the thick Wrigley infield. Yes, they are individual upgrades, but they would not fully answer the questions. Make those trades, and sign Giles, then we're talking, but I think those trades, all alone, would leave this team short. I don't think the Cubs will get Giles. But, to your point, if the Cubs make these moves, they will be in a Furcal or high-end right fielder mentality, and not both. If they sign Furcal, they have only ~8 million left to fill the bench, RF, and 1 bullpen slot (I am guessing kids + Dempster snatch all the rest). Otherwise, the Cubs gamble on Cedeno, and spend 10 mill on a RF.

From what I have read, Millwood is lock to re-sign in Cleveland. He like it there, loves the team's youth and future, and knows he will be on a contender for the length of the contract.

Absolutely. I'd put the money on Lee for the gold glove also.

But defense is not the reason this team didn't win enough games this year. I think with the Cubs current pitching staff, and the projection of adding another sinkerballer to the rotation, defesne is always a concern for this team. Playing the "what if" game, if Prior, Zambrano, and Wood all pitched 30 games last year (2005), we could possibly make an argument for defense costing the team more wins. A staff of Prior, Wood, Zambrano, Maddux, and Lowe is a staff of all prior all-star pitchers, half with perennial all-star potential going forward. With a killer defense, this team should only need to score 4 runs per game to win 90+.

I echo the "not a fluke" sentiments, though luck is a factor in their success this season. Williams acquisition of Garcia and Contreras were calculated gambles that paid off. Both were quality pitchers that had some concern prior to the trades. Garcia needed a change and Contreras needed to get his head clear of the aftershock of defecting and family seperation. Williams went with good defense up the middle to back-up those pitchers, which is always critical. Iguchi was another successful gamble. Where they got lucky IMO is with the starting pitching staff remaining healthy and productive all season long. It is rare for a team to have 4 starters have 32/33 starts in a season these days. And the two 5th starters combined for 32 starts. In other words, the team used only 6 starters for the entire season. Podsednik was an interesting gamble. Respectable average, OBP, and light OPS for a corner outfielder doesn't exactly wow anybody. But he definately makes things happen on that team, with his energy, and that was true in Milwaukee also. It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

It's more amazing that 99% make mention of Neifi Perez I haven't read anything about Neifi in quite a while. That was the first. All you had to do was scroll back to the very first response of this thread :lol:.

Cleveland will be ready swing next year for the Central, so a veteran hitter with excellent production for dollar value will be a nice acquisition for them. I don't think the 2B prospect is ready, so Walker is an ideal fit.

It's more amazing that 99% make mention of Neifi Perez and some random dig at Dusty. Anyway, on topic: I would welcome Furcal in a heartbeat, with Cedeno sliding over to 2B. I'm willing to go through growing pains with Cedeno at 2B. I would also welcome a trade for Giles that involves excess young pitching (not Ramirez) outgoing, and then move Walker to Cleveland for a promising young hitter, even if not MLB ready, or a middle reliever. Then you run with Cedeno at SS. Either way, I feel pretty strongly that we will see one of the Atlanta DP guys pairing up with Cedeno in Chicago next year.

I always have a tough time defining what a tier 1 and tier 2 player is. I think there's less than 10 superstar position players in the game. There's probably another 10-20 perenial all star types who keep putting up good numbers. I don't consider Johnny Damon to be in either group. I think of him as a good player to have on your team, but not a difference maker. If he's asking for 5/50, I think that's way too much for what he brings to the table (which is good, but not great OBP, some pop, decent speed and above average defense). But he's not great at any one part of the game. Looking at the "similar batters" category on his baseball reference page, it's tough to be impressed. To date, he's probably been more or less fairly compensated, maybe a little overpaid making $7-8m per. But high salaries peaked earlier this decade, when your big time studs were getting $17m (aside from Jeter and Arod) and the 10-15 range was for other studs like Piazza, Tejada or Guerrero. Remember, though, he's past his peak performance years. If you sign him now, you're signing for what he did before, and frankly he didn't do that much. I wouldn't think about $10m per, no matter how many years. 3-5 years at $6m per might accurately reflect what he will give you, while 4/32 would be at the highest peak. And even there I'm not interested in the guy. I pretty much agree with your assessment, though I think he'll still produce for the life of a 4-5 year contract. His worth, like you say, is closer to 4/32 in a fair market, but this offseason has a shortage of talent and many teams in need of a leadoff hitter, so that drives the price up. He's not the best fit for the Cubs, and I doubt the team makes a pitch for him, but wherever he signs, I think he'll provide impact. As far as rating him against the league (tiers or whatever), it depends on the angle you take. If you pit him against all other CF the way all-star selection would, it provides somewhat skewed results, because of the very small number of power hitting CF (Griffey, Jones, Edmonds) that are going to command the attention for different skills. But when you stack him up against other leadoff hitters, only Jeter and Ichiro are comparable (if you assume Brian Roberts and Grady Sizemore come back to earth from 2005 career years) projecting into next year. Jeter is way overpaid, so there is no precedent there. Ichiro is also unique salary-wise. It is hard to find a leadoff hitter that establishes a worth precedent for salary.

Exactly. If I invest $10m over multiple years in a player I want Top 3 production from his position in the league, for the length of the contract. Damon won't deliver that. Give me a list of ten players who have in the last 10 years produced in the top 3 for his position every single year of the contract and had a top 5 salary for the position. Good luck. Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez come immediatly to mind. What about Miguel Tejada? Pujols has been top 3 with a top 5 salary ever since he resigned. Helton's been right around there. This seems like a rather odd exercise. It is an odd exercise, but just primarily points out that only elite players produce the value of high dollar contracts. I'm trying to figure if Damon's asking price is a matter of market inflation for tier 2 players, or if Damon if asking for tier 1 money with a tier 2 resume.

Exactly. If I invest $10m over multiple years in a player I want Top 3 production from his position in the league, for the length of the contract. Damon won't deliver that. Give me a list of ten players who have in the last 10 years produced in the top 3 for his position every single year of the contract and had a top 5 salary for the position. Good luck.

I never said otherwise. If you read, I clearly acknowledge it is an aspect of defense. I am just noting that it isn't the critical aspect of defense, to the point it turns a man into an overall poor defensive player. My statement was in response to someone elses implication that throwing arm defines defensive prowess.