TheDude

The fans love Rollins, particularly lately. I think Thome will be traded, and possibly Burrell. But I don't think Abreu.

Please explain how he is "years removed" from his best. All of the following 2005 stats were above career averages: BA, OBP, SLG, OPS. 197 hits ranks as his 2nd best year for hits. Basically, in 2005, his HR and 3B were down, and that is the full extent of your commentary. So, he clearly isn't in a sharp decline as you note. Now, compared to all other CF in MLB, Damon ranks way up there: #1 - BA, Hits, Top 5 - 2B, OBP His power numbers won't compare against other CF that are middle-of-the-order sluggers like Jones, Griffey Jr., and Edmonds. But against other lead-off hitters, they are still stellar. Quite simply, if he hits 5+ more HR this year, and a couple more triples, he comes close to a career year, or at least his 2nd best year. Yes I pay that amount for that many years. The market doesn't have any better and Damon keeps himself in pristine condition. He should be able to play as long as someone like Lofton, and still produce.

This place gives me daily surprises. That's why I love it. I'm beginning to think there isn't a single player alive good enough for this team, at least according to some fans.

Injuries happen to all teams, so those don't count. Player stupidity or psychology isn't bad luck either. Sorry, not feeling you here.

I care and I'm a little miffed that all of the teams I want to win are struggling, going 1-5 so far. I'm rooting against the all Central teams, and against the Yankees. Just once I want to see thr Yankees and Cardinals have a stroke of bad luck at an inopportune moment. It happened to the Yankees with the Rodriguez error last night, so maybe the trend is reversing (I can only hope).

Not Gomes, but maybe Huff. Huff is terrible. I would have taken him over the mess we had in LF in May, but I wouldn't take him on this team in 2006. There are better options for the OF, most notably in house. I'd bet that Murton puts up better numbers than Huff next year. I got $10 on that bet. I put down more than that. Murton will not approach a 30 HR season next year.

Actually, that is an easy call to make. Most managers would have made it I think. But don't be hasty giving LaRussa a lot credit for yesterday's game. Early in the game, they got lucky, repeatedly. They scored three runs in an inning where the hardest hit ball was a double-play. When you have a bunch of seeing-eye singles and flares, and the opposing pitcher falls off the mound during a pitch, it is easy to look good.

He would because: 1) The Phils need quality pitching that makes them a contender next year. I corrected it for you. This rules the Cubs out because they need the same thing. If they had it, they wouldn't trade it.

Several thing likely contribute to his perceived value around: -His only big league playing time came as a Cub and he was a minor league manager within the Cubs system. So people have some familiarity with him, particularly those with more knowledge of the minor leagues. -He was fairly successfull in LA over 5 years. The team he managed just before Depodesta's meddling was a fairly strong team based around pitching and unbelievable defense up-the-middle, something many Cubs fans covet (only with some actual offense to support it). -He isn't Dusty Baker.

Baker has praised Murton several times in the past month. The real "proof" of Baker's intent will be in the pudding: do the Cubs sign a true bench back-up, or a bubble-starter player who is supposed to just "contend" for the the job.

Why would Millwood come cheaper? He is 30 years old and coming off an ERA title. His agent is Bore-ass. Millwood is going to command at 10 million a year, likely for 4 years. Well, $10m is cheaper than $12m, and we wouldn't have to give up prospects for him. Plus, Milwood is light years better than Vasquez. That is why as soon as hit submit, I knew I had to edit the post and add, 'at least'. Market will dictate what Millwood is worth, and it may well be 12 or more. But, as others have pointed out, for the same amount of money, you might be able to bring back a young player with a bright future. So part of Vasquez's salary is really in buying that stud.

Why would Millwood come cheaper? He is 30 years old and coming off an ERA title. His agent is Bore-ass. Millwood is going to command at least 10 million a year, likely for 4 years. [edit - added key words 'at least']

Paul Byrd and his 28 walks in 216 Innings strike me as valuable. Maybe it would rub off on some of these kids.

Vasquez has solid indicators. A nearly 4:1 K/BB ratio and a respectable WHIP. If I were in the Cubs front office, I would entertain trading for him. However, I would not be pushed into the position of giving up much talent, and approach the trade as a salary relief deal, as opposed to a talent-for-talent deal. Even with a good young player coming back. So to answer Hoops's questions: 1 - Yes it is good idea 2 - I look to give up excess youth starting pitching and try to move Patterson.

These types of expressions are just rhetoric, standard coach/GM verse straight from the book. Don't read too much into it.

Most people know my stance on this, as I love speed, defense, and a pesky contact hitter. And on top of that, he has a .370 OBP. I wanted Castillo as my number one target before he re-upped with Florida a few years back. Hendry - get it done. I'd even figure out Lowell's situation after the fact. Don't wait to have the flip in place. Castillo is so worth it, and so absolutely what this team desperately needs. And lastly, you know Castillo would instantly be one "Dusty's Guys".

I liked this artcile by Miles much more than the one written the other that was discussed in the Baseball Discussions forum. But still, I don't like the definitive stamp he (and many in this community) put on the OBP vs. speed at the top of the lineup. In my mind, it isn't a vs. situation. You put speed with plus OBP at the top of the order. Doesn't have to be the best OBP on the team, but at least above average. And with speed.

You know what, in the FA market for this year, the extra money doesn't really do much for the team. This team can win on 100 million.

What's the point though of bringing him up if he's just gonna go back if/when he struggles? If you are gonna bring him up, he needs to stay and not get yo-yoed. Because, IMO, one call-up and send down doesn't constitute a yo-yo effect. Now, if it happens more than once in a season, then maybe the argument can be made. Murton and Cedeno had some yo-yo effects going on this year. But testing the kid out at the start of the season to see if he is ready, and sending him down until September if he proves to not be ready isn't jerking him around.

The Twins have something good with their 7-8-9 bullpen. I wouldn't break it up if I were them.

I think Nomar is a bit of a rare breed right now. It sounds to me like he genuinely feels like he wants to prove himself in Chicago, perhaps as a matter of pride. I'm not saying he necessarily accepts less money than the market dictates, but I get the sense his pride or honor is bruised a bit and he wants to show Chicago his worth so it doesn't tarnish his career. As for Pie, bring him up to fight for the job. I don't buy the "rushed" youngster argument everyone is sold on when it applies to the top prospect or star potential players. There are many examples of young guys who do well coming from AA to the big leagues, especially those that have superstar potential. Seems to me he has about 50/50 shot of performing well from the start. If not, send him to AAA.

Because most writers don't vote off the avg/obp/slg line, they pay more attention to team stats, like wins and RBI. Conventional wisdom. There is taht, and the fact that MVP awards go to players on winning teams traditionally, especially teams that may have had some struggle or highlighted conflict that their superstar player carried them through. Jones will get the NL MVP, because the perception is that he carried his team through all the injuries and served as a role model for the rookies. It ignores the fact that Jones splits with RISP are near Patterson-esque terrible: .209/ .335/ .390 with a .725 OPS. So he has certainly not been "clutch" despite the media hype.

I'd be surprised if Patterson is in Chicago next year. I envision his future will look like Choi's current state - fighting for a full-time job somewhere forever tagged with the "potential not realized" tag. And I still remember when people laughed at my strong desire to trade Patterson to the Royals years ago for Beltran, because Patterson was going to better than Beltran (at least that was the argument). Curse that knee injury!

I'm not quite sure why you quoted me, as your response has nothing to do with my statement, but I suppose I'll comment anyway. The Cardinals have many pitchers in their rotation and bullpen with a history of injuries. Do any them make Wood kind of money? No. But I hardly think the argument (well, there wasn't any supporting argument :? ) holds. Kerry did average 199 innings per year from 2001 - 2003, a stretch of three years pretty healthy.

I know Miles is a friend to this messageboard, but I'm not buying this article because it sights many low value examples and misses some of the more valuable criticisms. Rodriguez for the Cardinals is a lucky call, straight-up. They got lucky, sometimes it happens (Borowski a few years back). The better approach would have been to ask why the Cubs did not rely on Murton the same way the cardinals relied on Rodriguez. That is the real issue there. The Cardinals stuck with the unproven guy, while the Cubs would not until it was too late. On the other hand, the Cubs got unlucky with Lawton. There is no reason to think he couldn't have worked out at the time the deal was made, and if he had sparked the Cubs to a wild-card comeback, it would have been heralded as a genius move. I seriously doubt anybody in a front office anywhere would, without the advantage of hindsight, have taken Rodriguez over Lawton. Another reason the Cardinals are successfull is they are capable of playing all offensive styles of baseball because of a balanced roster. If they need to get the job done with OBP and power, they do it. If they need to get the job done with fundamentals and a little small ball, they do it. I constantly point this out, but it never really sinks in. The cardinals play whatever style of baseball gets them the win on that particular day. The only offensive style of baseball the Cubs know is Homerun. Back to the Miles article, sure the Cardinals had injuries, but not to the same extent as the Cubs in terms of value to the team. The Cubs had the top 2 starters go down (who are both are arguably better than any cardinals starter when healthy), the closer, and 1/3 of the real offensive core. All before the end of April it seemed. Going into the season, analysts never said anything like, "The Cardinals can't get to playoffs unless they have Rolen everyday." But they sure said, "The Cubs are sunk without Prior or Wood for 200 innings." The last thing is that the Cardinals bench is better. The Cubs have a terrible bench. The Cardinals have no trouble plugging in guys.