dew1679666265

I think bunting is becoming much more acceptable - which is why I pointed out that there are beneficial times to use it. I'm also much more open to players like Pierre, Campana, etc., laying down drag bunts and the like since they have very realistic chances to reach base that way. It shouldn't be done all the time, but as a strategic weapon it can be useful.

Bunting is for people who can't hit. Sac bunting is. There's definite merit in bunting for a hit, for certain players.

I knew it was 50-something, 52 just came to mind. And you're right, Schilling and Johnson carried that pitching staff to the awesome numbers it posted. The DBacks won that year because their stars were stars, period. They had great players who played great. This discussion reminds me of the 2005 White Sox "Ozzieball" farce. Yeah, I was thinking about them too while I was writing my first post in this thread.

I knew it was 50-something, 52 just came to mind. And you're right, Schilling and Johnson carried that pitching staff to the awesome numbers it posted. The DBacks won that year because their stars were stars, period. They had great players who played great.

As for a manager I'd like to see the Cubs hire, I'm not vehemently opposed to the vast majority as I think a talented enough team can win despite the manager. If I could create my own manager, however, he'd resemble very closely Lou Piniella. Especially his first couple of years in Chicago he kept Larry Rothschild, hired Gerald Perry, stressed a patient approach at the plate and didn't put undue stress on the pitchers. Like anybody else he had negatives - loved Koyie Hill and put Ryan Theriot at the top of the order way too much, for instance - but his good far outweighed his bad. I'm not sure who out there right now fits that description, but if there is one I'd be all for bringing him in.

This sounds good and most teams say this after they've won because it does sound good and it resonates with their fans. However, it wasn't an accurate statement at all. The Diamondbacks had two future Hall of Famers at the top of their rotation - Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson - a guy who hit 52 home runs that year - Luis Gonzalez - and a few multiple time all-stars - Matt Williams and Mark Grace in particular. That was a very star studded team that put up pretty impressive stats. Their .342 team OBP was 8th in the majors and their .442 SLG was also 8th in the majors. A top 10 offense in both OBP and SLG in all of baseball and their pitching was even better - thanks to the two Hall of Famers. They were fourth in the majors in ERA (3.88), 8th in the majors in FIP (4.08) and they were 2nd in the majors in WHIP (1.24). Teams - including the 2001 Diamondbacks - don't win because of hustle and bunting - though hustling can help to a minimal degree, as can bunting if it's used correctly. Teams win because they get guys on base, hit for power to drive those guys in and their pitching keeps the opponents from scoring. The best thing a manager can do is work on the correct approach at the plate (patience) and on the mound (don't walk people) and then stay out of the way on gameday for the most part (the obvious exception being making the correct pitching changes).

I was basing my comments on the US/Brazil game - an extremely subjective call that easily could have gone either way. To me if you're going to make a team play a person down on a call like that, then the rule needs to be altered. If Sunday's call is the exception to the rule, however, and reds are supposed to only be issued on clearly blatant stuff then I don't have as big a problem with it. If those kinds of subjective calls garner reds on a consistent basis, however, I'd think something to the effect of kicking the player out but allowing a sub would be in order. The double yellow makes sense to me since players have a chance to adjust their play after getting the first. It's the split second subjective decisions that garner a red (even if they shouldn't) that concern me. If calls like Sunday's are the norm - or even close to it - then I think the rule is too harsh.

Wednesday at 11:30 a.m. ET.

There is nothing wrong the rule. From the perspective of someone who isn't a soccer fan and has only really watched the most recent men's and women's World Cups: It seems like an overly harsh rule to have a team play one person down when the calls can be so subjective as they pull red cards for. With the repercussions so severe (which is fine in and of itself), it seems like they should eliminate the subjectivity from it. For instance, pull a red card only on the most obviously blatant stuff and not for highly questionable calls like the one in the US/Brazil game. The Zidane headbutt, for example. That may be a flawed view, but it's what I've kind of gleaned from very little soccer experience.

But what's the benefit to keeping Pena? Maybe we have an ever so slightly better chance of re-signing him in the offseason, but keeping him could also have an impact on our draft slotting and we might pick a spot lower in the draft. We also would get, in the scenario outlined, three decent prospects who have varying levels of providing cheap production at the major league level. There's really no good reason to pass that up.

I was wondering about that. I remembered the players being more highly thought of than filler, but couldn't find anything to prove that in quick search. In a small sample size, it appeared Ty'Relle Harris was close to being able to contribute out of the pen, but I'm thinking he got hurt or something.

Yeah, I'll agree with you and gooney there - the Cubs' system has a lot of depth. That doesn't mean we shouldn't add more, though.

Or he could get hurt tomorrow and be worthless. There's no reason to trade Pena just to get more filler, doing so because it is the highest offer is dumb. You're talking like Pena is some irreplaceable key to the Cubs' contention in 2012. He's at best option #3 entering the offseason and could lower than that and there are multiple guys who are likely to be available who can, in one season, give us similar production to what Pena could. Why is it bad to add more potential cheap production when the only other option is to get no potential cheap production at all?

If the reasoning is that we want to keep him because we might decide in January or February that we want to bring him back, then not trading him makes no sense. Who says that decision will only be made in January. It could be made for you before then. As SSR said, the chances are right around 0% that the Brewers will have the money to re-sign Fielder and once he hits the open market, Boras will have him string out the bidding as long as possible. The earliest possible chance the Cubs might fall out of the Fielder running would be mid-late December and, by then, Pena will have been on the open market for a month or more. And all that is assuming the Cards randomly decide to pay Pujols $10 mil a year more than they were offering or Pujols decides, out of the blue, to take a huge discount from what he was demanding before the year. There's a chance that happens, there's far less of a chance that Fielder never hits the open market.

There's a small chance Pujols could be re-signed by the Cards, but barring Fielder being traded at the deadline I don't know of any way he could be off the market before the Cubs can make an offer, considering there's basically no chance the Brewers can afford to re-sign Fielder, a Boras client. Besides the unlikely event of a trade (the Brewers are still in it and the Cubs could then choose to just keep Pena if Fielder were traded) or the Brewers re-signing him (no way they have the money), what other ways can Fielder never make it to the market?

The farm isn't lacking in depth, but to me that doesn't mean you pass up more depth when it's the best offer that's out there. If Pena were signed through 2012 then I'd be all for keeping him if we don't get an acceptable offer, but there's next to no benefit to keeping him when he's a FA after the year anyway. I could understand keeping him if he's going to be a Type A or B (I hadn't thought of that to this point), but then the question is would Hendry or whoever the GM is after the year offer him arbitration and how likely is he to be a Type A or B? His average will really hurt him in that regard, as would RBIs, I would think.

If the reasoning is that we want to keep him because we might decide in January or February that we want to bring him back, then not trading him makes no sense. If the reasoning behind keeping him through July 31 is to see if a team gets desperate, that reasoning makes a little bit of sense. Basically, I wouldn't be opposed to holding him through August and seeing if you could get a better deal, but by the end of August I'd advocate trading him in the best deal offered - whatever that is. If all you're being offered if filler, then yes you do trade him for filler. Why is it bad to add potential cheap production to the minor leagues?

By the time we've ruled out Pujols and Fielder, Pena will be on the open market whether we trade him now or not. Not necessarily. And it's still better than taking back more garbage. Nothing is better than something? That doesn't make sense. There is a small possibility somebody could re-sign Pena after trading for him, but again, it's not like there aren't other Carlos Pena's out there we can go after at that point. He's a nice player, but not some critical piece we should feel we need to hold onto.

Keeping him because you're not getting what you want isn't a good strategy. Adding three guys who have a small chance of becoming major leaguers is better than adding no guys at all. Is it ideal? No, but there is no upside whatsoever in keeping Pena unless we decide during the season not to pursue Pujols and Fielder. Trading Pena, even for a mediocre return, has even just a slight upside, so there's no reason to keep Pena around. If he were under contract for 2012 already (much like Aramis is), this argument would make sense. But he's going to be on the market either way, so I don't see the upside for us. This reasoning makes a lot more sense. I could see holding out the hope that you could get more in August, getting no offers and then just keeping him. But intentionally keeping him simply because teams aren't offering a great return has no upside whatsoever.

By the time we've ruled out Pujols and Fielder, Pena will be on the open market whether we trade him now or not. There is a window to negotiate with your own free agents after the year, but that window will have expired by the time we know we're out of the Pujols/Fielder sweepstakes. At that point, it's irrelevant whether we kept him the remainder of the season or not.

We can re-sign him in the offseason, though, if that's what we choose to do. The only benefit to keeping him would be to have him during the exclusive negotiating period, but that will have ended by the time we can begin negotiations with Pujols/Fielder. I guess a team that acquires Pena could then re-sign him, but that's generally unlikely and it's not like Pena's a guy without peer on the FA market.

If the Cubs only get a marginally better deal than they shouldn't even trade him. What good does keeping Pena through the deadline do the team? I realize we've got a horde of players similar to the guys we got in the DLee trade so getting more of them for Pena isn't special, but Pena does us no good playing out the string and then leaving via FA.

Reed's become a poor center field defender (-5.1 UZR this year), while Campana's only really good attribute is his very strong defense (+3.4 UZR). Reed's much better in left, but most of his innings this year have been accumulated in center, where he's no longer a good defender. Campana, on the other hand, is a good defender in center.

I do agree that teams would put too much focus on his mediocre ERA and not enough on how well he was actually pitching. If the rumors are true, however, that the Red Sox have an interest in him then they probably are looking beyond the ERA and realize he's been a very good pitcher. That said, I do agree that he almost certainly won't bring back at least what we gave up in prospects so it doesn't make sense to trade him. The biggest reason, I think, is that we gave up so much to get him that it'd be hard for any team to be willing to match it, no matter how well he was pitching. The mediocre ERA does make them less likely to even try, though. His career H/9 is 8.6 while it's 8.9 this year. Not much of an increase at all. And like I pointed out previously, his BB/9 is still better than it was in 2009 and still very close to his career BB/9. His LD% is up over previous years (23% this year vs 19.1% in previous years) so when he's getting hit he's getting hit a little harder. He's not giving up many more hits, though, meaning he's less hittable overall this season. Most of that can be explained by the poor Cubs' defense. It's not a coincidence that the Cubs have had three OFs who have been poor this year (Soriano, Reed, Kosuke) in the outfield for a number of Garza's starts. Campana has helped, but even still he's stuck between two guys who have struggled defensively this season.

I don't think he's wrong either way. It's admirable to want to represent team and country, but it's also more admirable to want to spend time with your family - especially when you had already previously committed to it. In all honesty, I wouldn't blame him in the least if he felt disrespected enough not to go. Three to four clearly inferior players are put in the all star game (including the horrendous choice of Scott Rolen) before they finally get around to one of the best third basemen in the game? Declining out of the principle of the ASG selection process being a sham wouldn't be a bad thing, I don't think.