TheDude

I have not read all the pages of this thread, so I have no idea if I am in the minority or the majority. But I think this is a horrible trade. -The Cubs give up youth for a 33 year-old rental. -The Cubs take on a ton of salary. -This move does not take the Cubs from a .500 team to a .667 team (which is what is required from here to the end to take the wild card). Ok, so Lawton has a higher OBP than Gerut. Big deal. You don't give up the inexpensive youth for an expensive veteran if you aren't going for broke. Basically, Hendry went half-way, which adds no value to this team long-term. I'll root for Lawton, but I think this was a stupid trade.

I don't get it. I know have read more than once that Hendry's reluctance to give up Hill was the reason the talks for Dunn quieted down. But now Hill is going to be available?

Why do so many people predict a downfall in Manny's numbers? He is a perrenial MVP candidate and one of the best hitters in baseball. Parks don't matter. Opposing pitchers don't matter. No fringe factors stat-busters can search for justify that prediction really. The Mets would definately be propelled to the favorite for the wild card with Manny. Beltran, Ramirez, and Wright in the middle, with support by Piazza and Reyes. Man that is serious offense.

Just FYI, The splits were 2002 - 2004, so it includes as recent as last year's numbers.

As long as were using isolated incidents and not full portfolios, why can't we make the claim that anyone who deals with Hendry will get fleeced (see the ARam for Hill deal)?

That wasn't true in NY though: 3 year splits 2002 - 2004 - Away OPS .866, Home .836; Away OBP .332, Home OBP .331 The road splits everybody is so concerned about seem to be an anamoly to his career numbers. And what's good for the Niefi is good for the Soriano.

As others have mentioned, the rumormill regarding the Cubs interest in Soriano and Floyd has to mean a 3-way is the works. It seems like a tailor-made scenario for all teams: Cubs get Floyd Mets get Soriano Rangers get youth pitching MLB ready Splash prospects somewhere in the deal to fill the holes.

It's $2. Sorry, big time movie geek here :oops:.

How great an improvement do we need exactly? Soriano: Tied for 4th in AL HR, tied for 4th in AL Doubles, tied for 8th in AL RBI, 8th in AL Runs, 10th in AL SB, 11th in AL in SLG. The only thing this guy doesn't do is walk. But, as long as he is comfortably slotted in front a slugger, he doesn't need to walk - he'll get pitches to hit. Now, having said that, I am not sure if he is the right fit long-term for this team, unless the plan is to not resign Walker for next year, or if Walker is dealt (but isn't he under contract for another year?). Soriano isn't a natural outfielder, and I think he is resistant to such a switch. He also isn't a good 2B, and is a liability defensively. So, IMO, while Soriano is definately a legitimate bat to add to the lineup, I think it is a square-peg in a round-hole scenario.

I think the bat is more important. With the current Cubs staff, 4-5 offensive runs should win most games. 6/12 of the losses in July occurred when the opponent scored <=4 runs. The Cubs should win most of those games, and maybe a big bat could have been the difference. Now, having said that, the bat has to be a big bat. I like Gerut for the future, but adding another Gerut for the stretch-run doesn't help.

Very few teams in baseball have better than average #4 and #5. Teams settle for average out of these spots, including nearly all of the contenders. The Cubs are doing just fine plugging in solid prospects to fill the void.

Sorry, but I don't think so. We all can read, yes? Please re-read my post you quoted and show me where I am non-factual specifically without just generically making such a comment. What is my theory exactly? I don't recall stating a theory. I recall talking about fundamental baseball and the Cubs lack of it in one run games games and other situations where it becomes necessary to play for one run. I recall stating my opinion that Pierre brings aspects to the Cubs game that they currently lack, and that I welcome those talents. First, I don't know what you mean by "to the force". Second, tell that to this year's Cardinals and White Sox, the two teams leading each in wins. Tell that to the 2001 Diamondbacks, 2002 Angels, and 2003 Marlins. Do the Red Sox beat the Yankees last year in game 4 without Dave Roberts?

Can I ask your source? Not because I doubt it's accuracy, but because I have been looking for a source of such numbers.

The love for Delucci on this board is mystifying. Why is a 31 year-old career journeyman in LF going to revive this season again? When Niefi had a career one-third-year everybody was waiting for the balloon to pop, but for some reason it doesn't apply to Delucci. Anyway, I'd like to see Kearns in LF. If it works for this year, great. If not, next year the Cubs will have Kearns, Pie, Patterson, Gerut and Murton battling it out for all three OF positions, or 2/3 if a big name OF fills one of those spots in the offseason.

Thank you. Your graph only solidifies precisely what I just said, though your comments mostly ignored the point I made. The time for smallball is situational, and in the situation where you need one run, it is more effective. No advocates for Pierre are suggesting that the Cubs develop a team-wide strategy for smallball. I have said this at least a dozen times, but it nevers seems to stick in anti-smallballers' minds. Somehow, acquiring one player who excels at smallball equates to a team-wide strategy. So, I'll reiterate, again, that acquiring one player with outstanding smallball skills does not make an entire team into a smallball team. The Cubs have 30-40 HR sluggers at 3-5 in the lineup. They have 20-25 HR potential at 2, 6, and 7 (When Nomar's healthy). The power is already in place. Only LF and CF on the roster currently lack better than mid-teens HR potential. That is awesome. But, the Cubs are woeful at fundamentals. They lose many close games from lack of fundamentals. Pierre brings fundamentals, some of the best in baseball actually, and maybe his work ethic becomes contagious. I want Pierre to give the Cubs some sense of balance. Balance wins in sports. Is it really so bad to bring balance to a team that is lop-sided offensively? Anybody notice that the teams with the best record in each league sport some of this balance?

BK actually did a study on this and found that small ball teams don't really score runs more consistently than long ball teams. He just found that they tend to score fewer runs. I'd have to go back and check, but I recall the study showing clearly that in one run games, smallball was advantageous. He came to the conclusion that the advantage was insignificant because there was a small % chance the correlation was not linked. But the advantage is significant and the numbers show it. And once again people forget that teams do not play small ball the entire game. It is situational baseball. It's fundamentals. You do not go out there in the first inning and bunt the first runner over. I don't understand why anti-smallball people always forget that. The only time you play smallball is in close games. And it is not surprising the numbers show us that is the only time teams score more often while using smallball.

Do it. Make it happen. IMO, folks that don't like Pierre on this board typically don't appreciate that style of baseball I have found. Usually the same folks that don't appreciate Ichiro or Eckstein either.

Those are the basics. There are numerous threads and a strategy article from months ago on the subject (which isn't all that popular among the regulars here). It also includes high percentage of balls put in play, the ability to foul off close pitches that aren't the right pitches to hit, and placing the ball in play where you want in the field. Just as some more examples.

I'm not trying to criticize you but this statement shows you do not know Pierre's game all that much. This guy works harder at being a leadoff hitter than any other ballplayer I have ever watched up close over the last 20 years (including Ichiro). Pierre isn't a leadoff hitter simply because there isn't a better spot to play him.

Than why hasn't Walker been a leadoff hitter for his career? And why has Pierre been a leadoff hitter for his career? Is this a joke? Sorry, but if this is sarcasm, I missed it.

I completely disagree. The Cubs greatest need is for a reliable lead-off hitter with outstanding small-ball skills. The Cubs do not need anymore power - they need people on base in front of that power. Pierre is a much better option in the outfield than Hairston IMO. Hairston should return to to splitting 2B duties with Walker in a lefty/righty split, or play the role of super-sub ousting Macias off the bench as a primary option.

Why is it when considering trades people sometimes consider only current season, while other times consider career numbers (usually to sway an opinion)? Pierre is not a bad lead-off guy just because he had a slow 1st half. He has demonstrated an excellent OBP for several years (with 2002 being an off-year) and is widely regarded as one of the finest small-ball players in the league. Likewise kearns is not a bad future investment for the same reason CP is not for other teams. I'd be ecstatic to have Pierre or Kearns. Keeps the team young and talented.

I agree with this assessment. No more power is needed. Power is not the problem. It would be a mistake to trade top-of-the-order OBP for middle-of-the-order power. Lee and Ramirez with 35-40 HR and 40 doubles a piece, supplemented by Burnitz, Barret, and Walker adding respectable power in addition to the big boys, is enough for this lineup IMO. With a fully healthy staff, 4 runs a game should win most every game. This ignores the fact that Nixon is a better OBP guy than Hairston, in addition to having more power. This seems to be brought up a lot when power hitting targets(Dunn for example) are brought up. Some people say "We don't need any more power, we need a OBP/lead off guy. The truth is that in both Dunn and Nixon's case they provide a OBP and SLG boost, which makes them more valuable an acquisition than a singles hitting OBP guy. Great, so by that rationale then let Nixon hit lead-off. Or, for better yet, let Lee hit lead-off. :roll:

I agree with this assessment. No more power is needed. Power is not the problem. It would be a mistake to trade top-of-the-order OBP for middle-of-the-order power. Lee and Ramirez with 35-40 HR and 40 doubles a piece, supplemented by Burnitz, Barret, and Walker adding respectable power in addition to the big boys, is enough for this lineup IMO. With a fully healthy staff, 4 runs a game should win most every game.

I view GMs as generally have a 50/50 ratio when considering hits and misses with trades and free agent signings. Just the nature of the business. Fortunately for Hendry, his hits have far outweighed his misses. I'll accept the loss Cruz, the bad contract of Alfonseca, etc. by knowing the Cubs have 2 all-star studs sitting in the 3 and 4 in the lineup. In other words, Hendry's worst five moves during his tenure can't possibly compare to his best five moves in terms of absolute value.