DivineBovine

He's batting .467 with 5 HR this tourney.

Some people like to add SB's to SLG, and subtract CS from OBP, but that gives a stolen base the same value as a single, half a double, and a third of a triple, which isn't the case considering what those hits do to advance runners. Yes, but it doesn't seem fair to subtract CS from OBP either. So a guy can single in 2 runs, then get CS at 2B with 2 out and he doesn't even get credit for getting on base to begin with? This is an imperfect way of looking at the stats. The thing with SB is that the runner often dictates when he's going. There are some situations when stealing helps a lot more than CS hurts. Steal 2B with 2 outs, and 30% of the time, you might score on the next hitter. Get caught stealing, and 70% of the time, the next batter wouldn've been out anyways. There is a big advantage to being at 2B with 2 outs as opposed to first. But is there an advantage at being at 3B as opposed to 2B with 0 out? Not as much. The CS there is very costly. And what about a guy who gets gunned down and a broken hit and run? Why should the stats count all CS the same? It doesn't make sense. Here is the point I'm trying to make about that stat- because the runner and situtation dictates when the runner tries to steal, *the relative contribution that SB theoretically adds to SLG should exceed the relative contribution that CS detracts from OBP*. Is a guy who always hits home runs in tight games more valuable than a guy who always hits them in blowouts? Yes. But is there a stat to quantify it? Not really. People here just pan "clutch factor" stats. But the assumption is that home runs and hits occur somewhat randomly and when they occur in the game is somewhat out of the batters control. This is not the case for SB's. You control when you try and run, and its always a calculated risk. Speed is also valuable on the bases beyond SB. How many other times is speed just not counted in the stats? I love Aram, but I can't count the number of times another guy would've scored if he were running. You can site runs scored, but we all know its full of other factors. Also, no pitcher wants a speedy guy on base. It bugs them. It opens up holes in the IF. And fouling off pitches and not swinging and missing is valuable!! It pisses pitchers off and throws them off their game. There are no stats to back this up, because the stats would be too riddled with variables. But how can anyone who has watched baseball dispute this?

Offensive value and power are not mutually exclusive. His offensive value lies in his ability in getting basehits, not striking out, stealing bases and scoring runs Yes, but in his quest to not strike out, he loses power. The power is much more valuable than the ability to not strike out. By taking a "contact at all costs" approach, he limits the player he could be. You're defeating your own argument. I don't think anyone is going to try argue that Pierre doesn't give up power when he tries to hit for contact. He does. However, you also need to realize that an increase in power would probably lower his amount of contact, which would lower his amount of hits. In the end, Pierre AND this team are much better off having Juan do what he's best at AND what this team needs. Quite frankly we have MORE than enough power to get this team through the season. What the Cubs have been missing is a/some speed/OBP/guys who take more than 3 pitches types of players. Juan Pierre should fill that void nicely. Is it possible that Pierre's lack of power costs him walks and hurts his OBP? His inability to occasionally turn on a pitch creates a lack of respect from the opposing pitcher. If I was pitching to Pierre, especially with the bases empty, I would not be afraid to throw the ball right down the heart of the plate, because worst case it turns into a double or triple. I feel if Pierre would show just enough power to force pitchers to acknowledge the fact that Pierre can and will hit the ball out of the park, he'd be pitched to a little more carefully and hopefully draw more walks. Are there many low-power (<.400SLG) players who've consistently drawn a lot of walks and maintained a high OBP? Brett Butler comes to mind - his career OBP (.377) is actually higher than his career SLG (.376) :shock: ummmm......Pierre will never ever scare pitchers into pitching around him. Even if he manages to hit 10 HRs, it ain't going to happen. They will always be afraid of giving him a free base, and you really need a LOT more power than he has to get pitchers to pitch around him. Haven't we learned that you can't drastically change someone's approach at the plate? Pierre will never by a slugger. Never ever ever. That's not why we got him, and that's not why he's valuable.

There's a big difference there. Maddux in his prime struck out a decent amount of hitters, and his hallmark was exceptional control. Pierre essentially ignores one of the most important parts of hitting, hitting for extra bases, in lieu of not striking out, which isn't nearly as important. When Pierre sacrifices power for contact, it lessens his offensive value. Asking Pierre to change who he is and try to hit more gappers is like asking CPatt not to K. You can't change who you are. You can site all the stats you want, Tiger. I'm with all those who happen to believe that Pierre is valuable because he doesn't K and runs like hell. We've all seen it in 2003. And don't just ask the Cubs. You can ask the Yankees about it.

I love Pierre. He should keep doing what he's doing. I don't think there's any reason to believe he can't return to form. .350 obp with a ton of speed to wreak havoc on the bases. Let's see what the Cubs do with him at the top of the lineup, rather than the black holes we've had in the past few years. And I LOVE the fact he doesn't K. Does anyone remember what kind of pressure he put on the opposing pitchers and defenses in the 2003 post season? I don't care what anyone says. If you keep slapping foul ball after foul ball on a pitcher, it wears on them. If you get on base and threaten to steal every time, it wears on them. I don't care if there might not be stats for what he brings, but I've all seen it first hand. Don't change a thing Juan.

I read something that a few weeks ago, in the limited time Sweetney played, he had more assists in one week than Eddy Curry did in the entire season. That is pretty unbelievable..it also shows that once Curry gets his hands on the ball, he will attempt to take it to the basket and not even think about passing. Of course his 4 rebounds a game don't help much either..pretty much, the guy is a waste for a 6'11 body. I didn't think too much of the trade at the time, but boy am I glad we pulled that deal now. It's great to see all 3 of the ex-Bulls (none who I never cared for) and 2 of my favorite ballhogs in Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury all on the same team. Isaiah Thomas put together the biggest joke of a team I have ever seen in my life. It's hilarious to see that Jamal Crawford and Jalen Rose on the Knicks along with Stephon and Francis. It's too bad for them that the game is only played with 1 ball. Curry is such an enigma. In terms of low post skills, he's got uncanny talent. In terms of his rebounding and defense, it's not like he is unathletic. But it's looking like he may never live up to his hype. I was also unsure about the trade at the time. Good thing I wasn't GM. Pax has done a great job. The Bulls seem to be sitting pretty now with the picks and all that cap room.

The Knicks are just pathetic! This is what happens if you have a Yankee mentality + a salary cap. I can't wait to see how the draft pick turns out.

Not necessarily ridiculous, the Bulls are going to have a tough time being really successful with two short guards. Of course I don't think the Bulls will get good value for Gordon. i think the Bulls could get a lot for Gordon IMO. the newest rumor that I saw was Kirk Hinrich and the Knicks pick for Jermaine O'Neal. SIGN ME UP. Holy crap, that would be a sweet deal. Agreed. I have been in favor of trading Hinrich for a while. I even made a post a while back before the draft saying I wish they wouldn't draft him. I have grown to be a Hinrich fan, because he plays hard and is a very solid player. But the fact is, he's seems to have peaked. He can't seem to really break through the 40% shooting and will never much more than a solid role player. Gordon on the other hand has unique skills. Even if he's not a true PG, if they trade one of their undersized guards, I'd want it to be Hinrich. The deal is a no brainer. This years draft is supposed to be weak even though the Bulls will have a high pick. Too bad the no HSer rule had to kick in this year.

I want to see them make the playoffs this year and continue to improve, but I know they aren't going to contend for a title just yet. The future looks bright still. They have some solid young talent, cap space, and a likely very high pick in the draft. Like 1908 says, 6 rings eases the growing pains.

Just furthering the 'dislikeable' tag.... I really have no rooting interest in this game, though I can't stand Joey Porter. And if they had called the delay of game and everything else had been the same, Randle-El would have been short of the first down. Me too. I couldn't stand the trash talking by Pitt and Porter. It's too bad. The Refs decided this game.

Seattle seems to be getting SCREWED by the refs. Madden and Michaels are being very diplomatic, but it seems like the refs have just screwed Seahawks over and over. They had a TD called back in the first half, the BS hold on the pass that went to the 1, even the BS illegal hit by Hasselbeck on the INT. I'm not a Seattle fan, but it's a shame.

Don't pretend any new buyer wouldn't be interested in a profit. How can their failures be about money when they spend a lot more than most? They don't spend as much as the biggest spenders, but they spend as much, or more, than most of the consistently good teams. Look no further than Houston and STL, who each spend less than the Cubs and each outproduce. It can't be about money. At least, it's mostly not about the money. It's obviously a management problem, otherwise the Cubs wouldn't be consistently trailing Anaheim, Oakland, Houston, St. Louis, Minnesota and others. Of course, no rich owner is simply going to throw away millions of bucks to win. I know that. But buying a sports franchise is historically not done for investment reasons. The money made is invested back into the team. My assumption is that the Trib is fleecing the Cubs, and has been all along. The Yankees just started YES not long ago, and all the sudden Steinbrenner has tons more money to burn. The Cubs should own a cable network, not the other way around. I'm wondering how the most popular team in one of the biggest sports markets in sports is always complaining about money. I just want an owner who doesn't have to answer to shareholders and invests the money back into the team. Nobody is expecting Cuban to pay 100 million dollar contracts out of his pocket.

I happen to believe a lot of it is about money. Sure, the Cubs have been mismanaged over the years. And teams do win with low payrolls. But its a lot easier to win when you spend more money than everyone else. How many times have we gambled on an aging vet well past his prime when there have been top FA's available? I've been hoping for the Cubs to be sold for years, but never thought it might happen. With the fan base the Cubs have, they should have a little more of a Yankee mentality. I don't believe for a second that the Cubs have made $4 million or whatever in any given year. Never mind the ticket scalping organization, but there is no way anyone can tell me that the media contracts are paying the Cubs fair value. What does the Trib care? They own both. In fact, its in their interest to screw the Cubs in favor of the media outlets. That way, they can just point to the $4 million they made and say they spent all they could on the team. The Yankees START a cable network which is projected to be an absolute cash cow, and the Cubs are owned by one. This stinks to me, and always will. The fact is that the Trib is a publicly traded company that has to answer to shareholders. I would love nothing more than the team to be sold to someone who isn't running the team to make money, but because he is loaded and wants a team. Maybe the Trib will succumb to pressure, but something tells me it might be wishful thinking.

Easy Vote. NO. I feel priviledged to have seen the greatest and most exciting athlete of all time win 6 championships with the team I rooted for.

I wonder how Prior reacts to the rumors if he does end up staying put. Its hard to believe he'd take it really well.

It really steams me that the Cubs made no effort to get Tejada when in fact he was available on the open market. We had an abominable situtation at SS at the time, and were committed to KGonz for a year. So what. We could've unloaded him and even eaten a little of his relatively small but completely undeserved salary. I don't know if Arod would've come to Chicago, but somehow the Yanks got him for $16 mill/yr. The fact that we get Jones to round out our corner OF is as absurd. Tejada production in the OF is so much cheaper than at SS, yet Hendry decides to upgrade the offense at the most expensive spot. He decides that Tejada is worth one of the most valuable players on the team in terms of trade value. I sure hope all these rumors are a joke, because I'm beginning to feel that Hendry is one.

I just don't get it. They don't sign any high priced free agents in recent memory, they don't make any serious play at him when they need a SS and he's on the market, and now they want to trade our one of our top pitchers for him? Why give up money when you can endure 2 years of crappy SS production, then pay the money AND give up a twenty-something Cy Young candidate? Go Cubs.

1 in 100 is optimistic. He's so going to Boston. I saw the news clip, and it didn't even cross my mind that he could be a Cub.

Not who you think it should be, who will it be?

Don't forget Pie is 20 years old and expected to be playing regularly in the majors at 21. I don't know what you consider a "can't miss" prospect (or if there is such a player), but he's the closest this organization has had in a long, long time. Yep, pretty much since Patterson was rated the #1 prospect in baseball. ;) However, we have had a couple of pitchers come up since then that were pretty much "can't miss". For example, there was the kid named Prior... thats exactly what makes the can't miss label so useless. if a player who is labeled can't miss like prior lives up to the hype while another cant miss like patterson doesn't (if he wasnt a can't miss why was he labeled the #1 prospect in baseball?), the label of can't miss seems to be a hindsight evaluation without much value. Well, I understand that there's no such thing as a can't miss. But I'm not saying he'll flop either. I just feel that he seems a bit overvalued sometimes here, but that's simply my opinion, nothing more. It's also my opinion that if given the opportunity, the Cubs shouldn't hesitate to trade him to get a bona fide proven stud like Abreu.

there is no such thing as a cant miss imo. his .903 ops in AA at 20 years old along with his gold glove fielding however is indicative of very good (if not great) things to come if he can improve his plate discipline. how many ABs did he have last year? 240. not alot i know but he is very young for aa and put up some great #'s for his 1st time around. with pie, ep, marshall, gahllager, marmol, pinto & nolasco (unless they start at AAA), the double a team looks to be a very exciting one imo. Agreed that there's no such thing as a can't miss. Consider me in the group that feels Pie is overhyped. His plate discipline really bugs me, but maybe I'm wary of toolsy CF types with bad plate discipline. Bad plate discipline gets eaten alive in the majors. It's one thing if a guy doesn't walk because he's good enough to hit bad pitches (Aramis Ramirez), but to have a guy who doesn't walk because he's swinging and missing is bad news. Really, .903 OPS in 240 AB's for one year doesn't do all that much for me, espcially considering his plate discipline and his previous experience. This is not to say he won't be great, but for Abreu? No brainer.

Cuban would be a dream owner, but I just can't see the Trib selling. It's pretty clear that the Trib is making a ton more money on the Cubs than they are letting on. Anybody actually think that the Cubs are getting fair value for the TV/radio contracts? Despite the paltry profits they attibute to the team, they have firmly resisted selling despite many media outlets that have sold their sports franchises in the recent past. The fact that they are now tight of money just makes me think they are going to work that much harder to keep the team. This is why media outlets shouldn't own baseball teams, and why its no longer allowed.

If Pie can get us a top caliber proven bat, then I'd trade him. He hasn't shown me he's a can't miss. All he really is now is a prospect with potential. And his K/BB ratio really does bother me. He could very easily be a flop, like so many other top tier Cub offensive prospects in recent years. If the deal was right for Abreu, I'd do it and not think twice about it.

I'll be happy to see Pierre in CF this year. Count me in the minority. I hope the deal goes through.

I can't say I've ever seen Pie play, and I'm excited about any top prospect in the Cubs organization, but I don't see how he can be labeled a future all star based on his minor league performance. His stats show nothing spectacular. His average is decent, power is decent. Nothing is overwhelming. I'll take people's word on his defense and physical tools. He may well develop into an all-star, but it's impossible to tell. It's no gimme that he's even a major league starter. We all know about a highly touted Cubs CF prospect who's days as a starter might be done. His K/BB ratio does bother me. Guys that K a lot and can't draw a lot of walks don't easily change that. I know he's young, but still. That's also why I love Murton. I've been conditioned to look warily on high K/ low BB guys with talent. The Cubs have had more than their share of high K's and low BB's.