brinoch

The Cubs won't pick up any more bullpen guys, I'll say that now with confidence. Starters: Wood Prior Z Maddux Rusch Bullpen: Williams Williamson Novoa His Eyreness Dumpster Wuertz Ohman Intentional? I will come through this screen after you. I thought their were word filters so that wouldn't happen or is it just for the Sosa & Cpatt lovers? If and when "Dumpster" is used regularly as a pejorative rather than an affectionate nickname, then it'll be added to word filter. Until then, it's like calling Lee "Rodan". It could be considered insulting, since Rodan is an ugly, winged beast of destruction as one can see from my avatar, but it's not meant that way. Comparing the insults thrown at Corey and Sammy with this use of "Dumpster" wouldn't be fair. The difference is several levels of magnitude.

You're fine, and you'll be fine. I thought frostwyrn's post was borderline. Remember, attack the post, not the poster.

And he's spent it like a freaking moron. When guys like Tejada and Vladdy are out there, he's giving raises to Alfonseca, Macias and Neifi. Before he even gets a chance to spend on the impact players, he spends significant chunks on replacables like Rusch. He cuts corners repeatedly. I'm not saying he doesn't eventually spend the money. I'm saying he spends it on mediocrity, and that is exactly why this team has been barely above average under his control. Where were they going to put Vladdy?? LF?? Cmon that's not a fair criticism. Seems like he wanted to go west as he chose between LA and Anaheim. When you have a chance to sign the best FA available, you make the attempt. And then you trade Alou or Sosa.

Again, I'd love to see the Cubs go all out for Wilkerson (if he is truly available) and then Giles. Keep Walker, play Cedeno, and sign another starting pitcher. If there's another trade out there that will improve the club, make it (like Giles from Atlanta, for example). Upgrading a Baseball team is an exercise in economics. And I can't see how you justify paying $9M for Furcal when Cedeno stands a good chance to give you similar production at a tiny fraction of the cost. Let's say Cedeno can give us .280/.330/.380 (.710 OPS) as a rookie. I think that's a reasonable, conservative estimate. Compare that to Neifi! in 2005: .274/.298/.383 (.681 OPS). There's an upgrade right there -- and, yes, I know that Furcal is probably an upgrade over Cedeno. But how much of one? Furcal's been pretty consistently in the .284/.348/.429 (.777 OPS) range (that's his '05 numbers which are slightly higher than his career numbers). So, Furcal is likely worth 60-70 points of OPS more than Cedeno, and about 100 points better than Neifi!. Now, are those 60-70 points of OPS worth $9-10M per year over the inexpensive in-house option? Not to me. Bat Cedeno 8th and break him in. Trade from your stength, upgrade your weaknesses, and, where practicable, make modest upgrades where you are about average. Our weakness is OBP and production from the OF. So, then, let's find players to upgrade said weakness. And there's one on the market -- Brian Giles. Offer him 3 for $36M with a club option for an additional year at $12M, and a buyout for $2M. When I see Burnitz giving us .258/.322/.435 (.757 OPS) in RF whereas Giles provided .301/.423/.483 (.905 OPS) in a down year, I see a position of need. That's 150 points of OPS right there. Say you can sign Giles for $12M per. Burnitz made $4.5M in '05. Would you pay $7.5M for those 150 points? I would. Upgrading RF with Giles would be a less expensive upgrade than Furcal at SS, and the benefits are greater. How about CF... we know that needs an upgrade. And we can do a similar calculation. Our CF's gave us .234/.281/.362 (.643 OPS). That's terrible. Any reasonable upgrade here is worth it, frankly. Getting Wilkerson, Bradley or Pierre would be better, tremendously better, than what we had in '05. That said, what would each of them cost in salary and players for a trade. We have a Rule V roster crunch coming on, and we know it. Using some of that player capital in trade would be a good use of them, rather than losing another Sisco. The salary differences among the 3 of them aren't really large enough, in my opinion, to merit a deep discussion of cost benefit analysis. And since we have no idea what each would cost in trade, all we can really look at is production. Pierre and Wilkerson had down years. Bradley was injured. So, I'll use career numbers for comparison to be fair. Bradley: .269/.350/.484 (.834 OPS), 28 years old for 2006 season Pierre: .305/.355/.375 (.730 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season Wilkerson: .256/.365/.452 (.817 OPS), 28/29 years old for 2006 season Bradley and Wilkerson both have significantly more power than Pierre, who is a much greater stolen base threat. We know Bradley is a headcase, and a problem in the club house. Theoretically speaking, Baker is supposed to fix this problem, and lets say he can. In that case, I'll take either Bradley or Wilkerson over Pierre.

Ah, that's a great question... It depends on who else is available via FA or trade. It also depends on the performance, theoretically speaking, of Giles and Murton. Personally, I think Wilkinson is probably a better hitter than Murton, and an OF of Wilkerson, Pie and Giles would be nice. Wilkerson is still only 28 and coming off of a disappointing season. Additionally, you don't have to make that decision. Wouldn't it be nice to have the option to rotate Murton, Giles Wilkerson, and Pie according to matchups and to offer days off? Along that same thought process, Wilkerson provides an able backup to Lee at 1st, and can get some AB's there. It's certainly a bench upgrade, that's for sure. It also gives you a chance to properly platoon Pie into the Majors, rather than rush him into CF and place all that pressure on his shoulders.

If you're only interested in OBP, what's wrong with Pierre's effort in 2001, 2003 and 2004? As for the "long grass" strawman, it works both ways--Pierre is the best bunter in the NL, he will have more success doing that with long grass. How about the part where I talked about Wilkerson's ability to slug and the need to consider the whole package? I'm not interested in only the OBP. I'm interested in the whole package that is a Major League ball player. And thinking of the playing surface, like the fact that most home games are during the day, is hardly a strawman argument. It's a legitimate concern and something that needs be considered. Just because it doesn't support your belief that Pierre is right guy to get doesn't make it a strawman argument. Indeed, your statement of considering only the OBP when I clearly considered other factors is a classic use of a strawman. That said, a discussion of Wilkerson vs. Pierre would be a fine discussion to be had. As would a discussion of the long grass on Pierre's AVG -- would it hurt or help? I would contend that Pierre doesn't, at current, bunt enough to help, and it would hurt his slappy-hitting style. I could be wrong, however. Like I said, it would be a nice discussion. To be sure, I don't find Pierre to be completely objectionable. His production is more certain that Patterson's would be, and there's a value in that above and beyond the production provided. If it's a choice between Pierre and Patterson and the trade is something acceptable in terms of minor league players (or say Patterson and Ryu), then I'll take Pierre. Well, we're hearing rumors that Hendry has inquired about Wilkerson and a deal offer has been made. He might be cheaply available. On the other hand, Wilkerson might very well be untouchable. We don't know. So let's not close out discussion options when they are on the table and being discussed as an option. Personally, I would pay significantly more for Wilkerson than for Pierre. Players I'm hearing being bandied about so freely for Pierre are guys that have upside, and I wouldn't so cavalierly trade them for a rental, or for a guy of Pierre's likely production. Frankly, I think an OF of Murton, Wilkerson, Giles would be something to see. And if you can get upgrade over Murton as well, great.

That's encouraging. 3-year splits Day: .341 .395 .438 .833 Night: .288 .338 .354 .692 Those are pretty drastic numbers. I like the split. But I still don't particularly want Pierre. I'd much rather have Wilkerson. What if we only end up giving up Corey and a Rule V droppee anyway? Who knows what we'd have to give up for Wilkerson? Of course, we have no idea what it will take to acquire either Pierre or Wilkerson, so it's hard to say. I think it's important to look at the number of slap hits that Pierre would lose in the Wrigley long grass vs. the extra-base potential of Wilkerson. Pierre's OBP is highly dependent upon his average, whereas Wilkerson's is based on his ability to walk. He slugs significantly more, as well. This obsession to get a "speedy" lead-off hitter versus a guy who just plain gets on base is annoying and, frankly, foolish. Speed is good, and an asset, but you can't just consider speed in a vacuum. You need to consider the whole package. And a comparison of the complete Wilkerson package vs. the complete Pierre package leaves no doubt which player would be better for helping the Cubs score runs.

Personally, I'd rather have Burnett. But it's hard to deny that the AL's ERA leader would be a bad sign.

That's encouraging. 3-year splits Day: .341 .395 .438 .833 Night: .288 .338 .354 .692 Those are pretty drastic numbers. I like the split. But I still don't particularly want Pierre. I'd much rather have Wilkerson.

I'd rather have Cedeno, for 1/100th of the price. Focus on making a difference in the outfield please. Adding Furcal and Pierre doesn't impress me. Adding guys like Giles, Bradley and/or Wilkerson would. Walker Wilkerson Lee Giles Ramirez Murton Cedeno Barrett This might also allow you to grab another starter -- Millwood or Burnett, perhaps? Why spend $50M when you have a guy like Cedeno who will provide reasonably similar production for the league minimum. And don't make me rant about Neifi and Baker.

I'd rather have Cedeno than Furcal anyway.

He's old and homosexual. I don't think that comment was necessary or factual. There's no need to bring up someone's sexuality. Sorry if it was inapporpriate, but i'm pretty sure he's admitted he is. So what? If Ellen Degeneres could hit 40 HRs and play a solid CF, I'd be begging JH to sign her up. PC police on full alert tonight, huh? I gather from this thread it is OK to call people [expletive] (since no one made a peep in response to that) but calling someone homosexual really is going over the line. Because his post implied that sexual orientation somehow had bearing on his ability to be an athelete. It's a completely offensive term, and offensive post. I'm embarrased to have read it. Also, if you want to get into a grammatical battle, the word "[expletive]" can be used without derogatory connotations to the mentally handicapped. I don't like using the adjective myself, but it's not offensive on it's own, depending on the context. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=[expletive] Please, everyone, let it go. Now. In the mean time, if somone would PM me a link for this other issue, I will handle it. Thank you for your cooperation.

He's old and homosexual. I don't think that comment was necessary or factual. There's no need to bring up someone's sexuality. Sorry if it was inapporpriate, but i'm pretty sure he's admitted he is. So what? If Ellen Degeneres could hit 40 HRs and play a solid CF, I'd be begging JH to sign her up. PC police on full alert tonight, huh? I gather from this thread it is OK to call people [expletive] (since no one made a peep in response to that) but calling someone homosexual really is going over the line. Drop it. If and when you see something that is inappropriate, let a mod know and one of us will deal with it. We aren't online every minute of every day in every single thread.

Okay, keep it civil everyone. Thanks.

Colorado, perhaps. But Washington already has too many OF's. Unless they trade Wilkerson... in which case we would be better served by giving them Patterson in a deal.

We might know what Cedeno could offer... but instead we saw Enrique Wilson and Neifi Perez in the starting lineup. I really do want to harp on this point: this is the third year in a row where injuries have afforded opportunities for rookies to prove their worth. And it's the third year in a row we know very little about them because they played very little, all in all. Hill, Harris, Kelton, Dubois, and Cedeno all could have been given a greater look, but never were. Cedeno impressed, certainly. But it wasn't all that much time considering. Cedeno didn't need to be an upgrade over Nomar to merit playing time. All he needed to be was an upgrade over Neifi. And I'm confident that he would be an upgrade over Neifi... enough of one to ignore Furcal and concentrate on OF? I don't know.

As far as I'm concerned, the Cubs need to prove that they understand what needs to be done to improve the team. I simply have no confidence that they've identified the problems facing the team, and so I think the Cubs will continue signing mediocrity.

I don't think LA would be particularly interested in Walker, other than as a piece to get a 3B. They have Kent already. Now, I could see a situation where DePodesta brings Walker in to play 2nd, and Kent moves over to 1st. I haven't heard any rumors to that effect, but it's not inconceivable. I don't see, however, a way to bring Bradley and Lowe here and send only Walker to LA -- you'll have to send Jerome Williams or some solid prospects along. But, this deal adds another hole to the lineup -- 2B, that now must covered (possibly by Cedeno). I can see where the Cubs upgrade by adding Castillo, Bradley and Lowe, though. Any way you slice it, I think that the OF still needs an upgrade. Gimme Giles. Finally, one thought here: I've seen some posts that I read as criticism of Hoops "predictions." Hoops isn't predicting trades, he's offering us solid information about what he's hearing from sources. He always qualifies his posts based on how credible he thinks the information is, and will critique the information. Now, I'm a firm believer in politeness and, in general, not insulting those who offer information or services that I wouldn't otherwise have access to. Hoops' info is always interesting and thought-provoking. And I for one would like to see it continue. So let's lay off the critiques, shall we?

Wilkerson, Guillen, Church, Sledge, and Byrd for only 3 spots. That and Bowden is stupid, so it could happen. Guillen and Sledge (presuming health) will definitely be back. Byrd... from what I understand they don't love. Church was well-liked. If the Nats can get something they would value for Wilkerson, I think they'll deal him. There was a lot of disappointment in his performance this year, particularly with his strikeouts and his second half. The problem with the Nats wasn't really in the OF... it was Vidro's injury and the lack of production from Guzman and Castilla. For a good portion of the year you had Macias-Perez-Hollandsworth like production. And, remember, Wilkerson led off for them again this year. That, and their pitching needs some shoring up. RFK is a pitchers park, for the most part. If they can get some above average arms, they'll do it. Heck, I think Eric Milton would be a good pick-up for them, if Cincy would take some of the salary.

Yeah, I don't see the upgrade for us there... Walker is cheap production; almost as good as a rookie. Why spend several million dollars to upgrade a position where we are already above average? Use the resources, rather, to upgrade a position of need. Like, say, OF.

I'm beginning to think that that is what is going to happen too. Damon will go to the Yankees or Angels. Beltran will become Boston's CF. Cliff Floyd coming here. So you're ok with a Murton, Wilkerson and Floyd OF? Yes. Though if you can sign Giles, you can use Murton as your 4th OF. Then you have something to really get excited about. Giles-Wilkerson-Floyd would be excellent. 'Course, getting Giles, Wilkerson and Floyd is a pipe dream...

BBB, your picture is available on this site. I don't think there can be any confusion. :D

It wouldn't be the first time that I've had suspicions that Sullivan ripped off something from the site. To be fair, I really can't tell what was posted first. The article has an official post time. My post has a post time, but the post time doesn't match my clock. For example, it's 5:20pm Pacific time as I click submit. I like BBB much better than Sullivan, but I seriously doubt that Paul ran with his idea. The article has to be submitted, edited, headlined, and posted on the web. The post time isn't when it was finished, but rather when it was web-posted. And Sullivan has nothing to do with that. That article could have been finished and submitted at 3:00 PM for all we know.

NC Women's soccer. I thought we were talking about sports here. ;) (That was meant to be a soccer joke, btw, not a women's sports joke.) Grrrrr. [slidetackles BK] Quick, BK, pretend you're hurt so he gets a yellow card. Everyone knows that keepers can get away with just about anything. Yep. I love the raised knee in traffic... very effective at creating space.

NC Women's soccer. I thought we were talking about sports here. ;) (That was meant to be a soccer joke, btw, not a women's sports joke.) Grrrrr. [slidetackles BK]