TheDude

I understand what you mean, but do not believe it applies to all, or even most players and/or situations. This is where the OBP/power game philosophy has holes IMO. Situation by situation, and depending on the hitter's talents, you play either smallball or powerball. Trying to force one or other as a hard rule will not work (or at leats won't get a team a ring). If I seem a little more critical of powerball more than smallball, it is only because there are so many anti-smallball folks on this board among the regulars who won't acknowledge its relevence even slightly. But there are plenty of times I roll my eyes at Dusty Baker for trying to force smallball on a player inappropriate to accomplish the task. That is just as bad as ignoring a ball-in-play situation when it's needed. Plus, my last point about a K vs. ball-in-play is that funny things happen in baseball. Errors, odd moments, ball lost in the sun, etc. A strikeout can only create one such odd result, on a wild pitch. But a ball-in-play can create countless situations that will not show up as a hit or OBP stat in a boxscore.

Early in the season, Stone, as an ESPN guy, made the same observation of Remlinger. Dusty again decided to stick with (or bring in, can't recall exactly) Remlinger. Stone, Phillips, and the main play-byplay guy all commented that Dusty's move was counter-intuitive baseball just by looking at Remlinger's splits. The hitter crushed a homerun. Stone sounded a little disgusted (wasn't hiding his disapproval of Dusty's management well).

I am going to disagree with you and say this is vastly oversimplified and thus incorrect. You must consider the player in question. There are plenty of hitters, some power hitters included, that can still clear the fence with a cut-down swing. Homeruns that come as a result of bat speed more than power. A high percentage contact hitter can easily hit a gapper with a cut-down swing. Power hitters that are also BA-minded can increase bat speed instead of increasing bat power. To say the options for a cut-down swing are Out-PO-Single is just wrong. I'm glad to see Beane adjusting. The biggest issue I have always had with his approach was the lack of situational application. Good managers and baseball thinkers will recognize that building a team capable of playing different styles of baseball against various opponents and situations is what wins ballgames. Box thinking or 'all the eggs' will not win championships.

...like a total and complete smackdown of the Cardinals. Man, do I feel so much better today than yesterday. :D Here is hoping DLee hits two more dingers and gets back in the RBI race, but that is the main thing I am rooting now.

Sheesh. 1 pitch. All I can do is remind myself Milton is on the side.

I immediately thought of the same person. But maybe that is just because of Jose Canseco's mouthing off spree.

Yes this an excerpt from your post, but the rest of the post hinges on this false pretense. The quote is very simple. It says that the pitching is going to address the problem. That is aa proactive statement, stating what the response to the problem is going to be. Nowhere is blame being shuffled.

All about the return of Wood and Nomar. He speculates it is not enough. None-the-less, it is a well-written article. My favorite part...(emphasis mine): Link

This was the best post in thread. I applaud you for bringing it up. Dusty was correct in this issue. Effective managers delegate responsibility for certain things, and all around baseball, at any level, this is the pitching coach's area.

I think this demonstrates why the team needs people playing the positions they are actually qualified to play.

Nice park to debut in.

The Cubs have the most hits in the NL The Cubs have the 3rd most doubles in the NL The Cubs have the 2nd most HR in the NL The Cubs have the 2nd most TB in the NL The Cubs have the 2nd highest BA in the NL The Cubs have the 2nd highest OPS in the NL In short, they have one of the top 3 offenses in the NL. Pitching statistics tend to hover betwen 7th and 9th in the NL, which is just league average. However, the Cubs pitching leads the NL in SO. And, in general, the staff has better numbers than the pen (with 3rd lowest WHIP and BAA in the NL). The Cubs do a lot of things right. They should easily have a better record than they do, and the team's failure to have a better record is almost as anomalous as the Nationals success up until 4 weeks ago.

Reynolds and Kruk made a mistake, thinking there were two outs with the first set of discussion they had. They quickly corrected the mistake, and then reviewed the scenario again as a one-out scenario, at which time they correctly explained what Barret's options were, and the mistake he made. The first set of analysis was based on a false presumption, which was then corrected. It's no big deal.

Yes, in principle this is true. But after you analyze the free agent market, you begin to wonder if that is truly going to be worth it. Do you really want to ink a mediocre player long-term and miss out on the better looking FA market after next season? This is part of the equation.

This thread isn't meant to imply this season has been packed-up just yet. I just wanted to talk about next year since it is on my mind. As I see it, there are two distinct directions this team can take for 2006. A run with vets (reload) or a glide with youth through growing pains (mini-rebuild) and make a substantial run in 2007. Generic Vets supplemented lineup (assumes some resigns of current vets): 1 - FA OF (Damon/Lawton/proven leadoff ideal) 2 - Garciaparra SS 3 - Lee 1B 4 - Ramirez 3B 5 - Walker 2B 6 - FA OF 7 - Barret C 8 - FA OF Specific Kids supplemented lineup: 1 - FA OF (Damon/Lawton/proven leadoff ideal) 2 - Pie/Patterson OF 3 - Lee 1B 4 - Ramirez 3B 5 - Walker 2B 6 - Murton/prospect OF 7 - Barret C 8 - Cedano SS The real difference in these lineups is 4 slots are filled with FA in one, while 3 of those are filled with prospects in the other. Ignore for a moment the exact hitting locations in the lineup, or the suggested FA, and just consider the list as the starting roster by position. Because the discussion isn't supposed to be about who hits where in the lineup, or what specific FA to acquire, but rather what style of lineup and management. Because obviously an off-season acquisition of Dunn in the first proposal jumbles up half the lineup, so those elements are inconsequential to the main point. Either of these is how I see the team shaping up next year, and frankly, it seems hinged upon whether or not Dusty remains the manager of this team. What is your preference? I prefer the latter, with the open money available used to shore up the youth pitching on this team for the long-term (if necessary), or to retooling the back end of the bullpen by landing a bonified closer or gambling on another Hawkins/Remlinger based on previous 2 year performance (3rd time has to be the charm right?:)). I want to see what the talent we have in the minors can do. And maybe one of these kids blossoms in 2006 to the point he can be a substantial chip to whatever the "big acquisition" is going into 2007. Or, alternatively, does anybody see other possibilities for this team that I am missing? One might suggest a mixture of the two, but if Baker sticks around, I do not want to see another halk-baked attempt at mixing the two strategies - it will not do the kids any good, and half-baked is rarely an answer to anything in life. Cheers.

Most of those guys are aging vets. 2006 might be the year of the youth movement across all baseball, not just small and mid-market teams.

This isn't going to happen. You take certain risks with long-term guaranteed contracts in baseball. It is a very classless move to dump a future hall-of-famer to avoid a vesting option. And the Cubs new before signing Wood that he was an injury risk. The organization has to bite the bullet and work with him.

The trouble is, IMO, July 31 no longer serves as a reasonable trade deadline. Too many teams are in the hunt and just don't know whether to commit at the deadline or not. Then, the few sellers out there decide they have a major advantage (being one of 4 sellers), and start placing an absurd seller's market premium on their trade talent. I think MLB should look at moving the trade deadline back to August 15, and shorten the waiver time to two weeks. That extra two weeks will weed out more buyers and help create an actual even-keeled market.

Considering the buzz around DC is that some fans want to place Sosa on waivers, I'm not sure it really matters. I think I also heard one of the Around the Horn or PTI guys mention something about Baltimore should do just that. I am sure it was an opinion, not a scoop.

I sent a complaint myself to the ESPN Page 2 crew.

I am a firm believer that bullpen success is, for the most part, contagious. That being said, the Cubs have not been able to put together strong, consistent bullpens in recent years. Hendry has made some rough decisions during that stretch. At the same time, bullpen usage patterns have been eratic, and I don't know how much oversight is given to the bullpen arms by Dusty, Pole, or Rothschild. Bottom line--it needs fixed and I don't have much confidence that this group (including Hendry) knows how to do it. Not only is bullpen contagious, but it is a crapshoot. Hendry should get credit for signing Hawkins and Remlinger. At the time of the signings, each was an elite setup man the previous couple of years. Hendry doesn't get tagged for their on-field performance. Take a look around the league. There are about 20 guys you wouldn't recognize face-to-face that are having stellar bullpen years. It's a crapshoot.

Bonds has been tested this year. And after the all-player testing, the sample is completely random so as not to be discriminatory.

Wouldn't Remlinger make for a likely candidate to be a waiver trade for Chicago?

Well, I was origionally not in favor of this trade either. Not so much because I didnt like it, but moreso because I wanted somebody bigger. Now that I've had a night to think of it, I really do like this deal. To answer some of your concerns. If you wanted someone bigger, were you ready to give up somebody big? For example, Hill, Pie, Murton, Harvey, etc? That's why I didn't want a big deal. The only way a big deal was going to be done is if 1) we gave up top tier prospects, or 2) get a high priced big time player whose team is looking to get rid of money. Either way, I didn't want to go. I would have given up Hill (in a package) to get Dunn, but only Dunn. Youth for youth, exchange of needs. Keep Pie at all costs.

Well, I was origionally not in favor of this trade either. Not so much because I didnt like it, but moreso because I wanted somebody bigger. Now that I've had a night to think of it, I really do like this deal. To answer some of your concerns. - I doubt Lawton will simply be a rental. I could see him sticking around a few more years. And Gerut was young, big whoop. He had a good but (according to those who interpret stats such as babip better than I) insanely lucky year. And he hasnt come close to returning to those numbers. - A ton of salary?? The pirates are giving us 1 million to go towards his salary. So, that takes it down to 6.5 million dollars. Thats hardly a ton. - This move alone does not. But This combined with getting Nomar back in the lineup. And williamson and wood in the pen, that very well might. The only thing that concerns me is his pre/post ASG splits. He is always very good the first half, and very bad teh second. But we will see. I still like the deal very much. But the bottom line for me is that this move doesn't take the Cubs to contender. And I don't believe relying on 3 injury comebacks does either. That is a huge longshot bet. So even if Lawton is an upgrade right now, he doesn't make the club better for next year or beyond. Hendry needed to take a firm stance: seller or buyer. Make your run or look to next year. He did neither IMO. Now I am as big a Hendry supporter as anyone, but I think he blew it here. Lawton turns 34 in November. If he sticks around for a few more years, how is that any better than the current Hollandsworth situation? The board will have a heart attack if Lawton takes playing time next year from any Cub farmhand, because all of them around here are the next coming of Andre. So Lawton is a rental. LF and CF are almost assuredly available for a Cub kid to grab it in ST. Acquiring Lawton is completely lateral IMO.