Soul

Was he ever a realistic possibility? I don't see why not. Hendry wants LH bats, he wants CF help, but not anybody that would require a longterm solution. And Washington could be willing to get rid of him. I don't see how it couldn't be realistic. I agree - it makes a lot of sense. I'm just basing it on the past couple comments I've heard where Cub officials haven't even mentioned Church, combined with the reports that the Nats are asking alot in return. It just seems like they took him off the table and are looking for other options.

I believe Church to Chicago is deader than a doornail.

Anyone hearing what Jim's saying this morning? I can't listen to it because I had to go to work :(

We were desperate at the time for anything. Walker seemed good----still good in comparison to DeRosa, IMO. Dubois was just desperation: "please learn to hit or we're sunk" kinda thing. Of course, as it turns out, we were sunk :wink:

Cubs will sign Zambrano. I have no doubt about this. Honestly, any talk of a "budget" and "Cubs" is silly. There's no budget associated with this team, other than some self-imposed "we'd rather not go over this much" type of limit. The money's there. I'm not worried.

wise thinking by Lovie Smith. A guy like that can be very versatile because he's made a name for himself, and people will look out for him. You can put him in to run a couple of deep routes, run a couple of sweeps or end-arounds, or just a WR screen. At the very least, he'll serve as a good decoy if he's only in the game for 5 or 10 offensive plays a game. Either Lovie is angling for the element of surprise come playoff time, or he has simply changed his tune since then. We'll see. I harken back to another famous Lovie comment:

Well, it would certainly be fair to question the use of the stat to rank individual seasons, but as far as simply identifying them, I think it's quite useful. John Rocker really did have a very good season in 1999. Dustin Hermanson was fantastic in 2005. Kim was dominating in 2002. Turnbow had an ERA under 2.00 in 2005. Not saying they didn't have good seasons, but I watched seasons like Turnbow's in '05 and Kim's in '02. Good, but I wouldn't call them special. This stat concoction thing has gotten a bit out of hand. People are making stuff up, posting it on the internet, and then everyone's thinking it actually means something. I rebel against you, stat-maker-uppers! Personally, I'd be ecstatic if someone in the 2007 Cubs pen has a season like Turnbow's or Kim's. Is there a better way to judge "closer" performance? I rebel against your rebellion. :twisted: I don't know of one. I trust my eyes, and watch out for one-year wonders ;) BTW, I'd take Turnbow's '05 too. But it doesn't make him a great closer. Makes him a guy who had a good year.

Yeah----that's the quote I was thinking of. That sounds like Lovie might be mulling over a few plays on offense.

DVOA is the keyness. I think it has some problems but is a much better system than any of this other stuff. If you look, Benson has a much higher DVOA than Jones as well. It's sure as hell a lot better (and more FAIR) than Dr. Z's voodoo "power rankings."

Well, it would certainly be fair to question the use of the stat to rank individual seasons, but as far as simply identifying them, I think it's quite useful. John Rocker really did have a very good season in 1999. Dustin Hermanson was fantastic in 2005. Kim was dominating in 2002. Turnbow had an ERA under 2.00 in 2005. Not saying they didn't have good seasons, but I watched seasons like Turnbow's in '05 and Kim's in '02. Good, but I wouldn't call them special. This stat concoction thing has gotten a bit out of hand. People are making stuff up, posting it on the internet, and then everyone's thinking it actually means something. I rebel against you, stat-maker-uppers!

Clemens is just getting started. After he signs with Boston for one year, he's going to want to stay in the AL because of the challenge. But he'll want to go home and pitch in Texas. So he'll go to the Rangers for a year. Then he decides to retire...or not. So instead he goes back to the Yankees for a year to see if he can go out on top. The Yanks win the World Series. Clemens retires again, but decides maybe he should win a World Series back in the National League, with Houston. Repeat the process about 20 times and he'll finally retire for good. Clemens is a freaking merc. Modern "medicine" is truly wonderful.

Hrm.... Does he view him as a player who can play with the offense, or just as a scoring threat on special teams, therefore, like an offensive player. I'd think that would be a nice wrinkle to throw at the opposition with the playoffs coming. I heard a clip of Lovie and he said that was what he meant. No plans for Hester on offense for the time being. That's unfortunate. But not surprising. If they were going to make that kind of change, I bet they'd do it during the offseason. I could still see them try and throw him in for a play or two before all is said and done this season. I could have sworn there was a clip from Lovie where he said it might be time to start looking at offensive possibilities for Hester. The key words being "start looking." I have no way to prove this though. It's in the first post of this quote. He was talking about thinking about what Hester has done as being like an offensive player. No,no,no. I thought I heard Lovie elaborating on it, saying it might be time to start looking at actually working Hester into the offense on a couple plays.

CNNSi has them at 2 behind the chargers and the saints at 5 New Orleans is the flavor of the week at ESPN, they change teams every year, its nice to see they got off their knees in front of Tony Romo though They change every week! They've gone from NO to CHI to DAL to SD to DAL (again) to NO (again). What is with these guys? I like what Tuna said. "Let's put away the annointing oil for a little while." Thank you Tuna! Play the games, see who really comes out on top instead of picking favorites all the time and then biasing your coverage in favor of your picks! A novel idea.

Hrm.... Does he view him as a player who can play with the offense, or just as a scoring threat on special teams, therefore, like an offensive player. I'd think that would be a nice wrinkle to throw at the opposition with the playoffs coming. I heard a clip of Lovie and he said that was what he meant. No plans for Hester on offense for the time being. That's unfortunate. But not surprising. If they were going to make that kind of change, I bet they'd do it during the offseason. I could still see them try and throw him in for a play or two before all is said and done this season. I could have sworn there was a clip from Lovie where he said it might be time to start looking at offensive possibilities for Hester. The key words being "start looking." I have no way to prove this though.

Season over.

I think 2003 Eric Gagne, 2003 John Smoltz, 1981 Rollie Fingers, 1990 Dennis Eckersley, 2006 Jonathan Papelbon - to name a few - might disagree. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5428 The Eckersley, Gagne, and Fingers seasons are 2-3-4 in that list behind Mesa. Mike Jackson (!) is 5th on the list. The whole article is interesting. One point that jumped out at me: since 1985, one in four great seasons by closers was by a pitcher who had never recorded 20 or more saves in a prior season. In other words, about 25% of great seasons by a closer since 1985 have been enjoyed by guys who weren't "proven closers." It's interesting in the sense that the author essentially makes up a stat and then goes on to try to use it to prove something. Trouble is, he winds up with names like John Rocker, Dustin Hermanson, Derrick Turnbow and Byung-Hyun Kim on his "best" lists. Indeed.

:shrug: Career records aren't the best of things to look at in terms of a pro prospect. Both Quinn and Palmer didn't play with that many playmakers at other skill positions and Quinn hasn't played with a good defense. And, of course, Carson Palmer was coached by Norm Chow for just the last two seasons...and really had one good year at USC - his senior season. Looking at stats isn't the best idea - gotta look at the overall picture. Being able to run a pro offense was good for Carson and it will be good for Brady at the next step. Brady doesn't have the arm strength that Carson did, I think their accuracy is about equal. When coming out of college, Carson was a better prospect than Quinn will be. But in this era where franchise QBs are king, no way Brady Quinn shouldn't go with the top pick. I was just responding to BigSlick's post that Quinn might end up busting because he "can't come through in big games". Of course, I don't consider 22/45, 330 yards, 3 TD, 0 INTs, and 70 rushing yards (his USC stats) when your team is letting you down repeatedly with dropped balls and no blocking "not coming through", but that's another thread. I'd like to see the final list of top prospects next spring, but my early sense is that Quinn should go high 1st round. His arm strength is fine. He's tall. He's run a very good NCAA offense for awhile. He's played under Weis---a solid coach from a successful pro team. I don't see how anyone could deny that Brady Quinn is a high 1st rounder. Not that I'm hearing alot of that.

A very good closer. And a Panamanian. Good for him. There have still been top closers from the US. As I said "3 of the best closers" NOT "the 3 best closers."

:shock: Yeah that's the kicker for me too. You been drinking today cheap? 8-) Who cares when or where a closer started, btw. The comment said good closers won't be Americans, not what era they came from.

Not necessarily my own view, fwiw. Who wrote that? I would also like to know. Aren't 3 of the best closers in history Eckersley, Lee Smith, and Eric Gagne? 3 Americans? Gagne is Canadian. And, Joe Morgan wrote that. It says so at the top. I just don't believe he wrote it, even if it "says so at the top". I don't either----though hating Joe as I do, I tend to believe he's capable of it. Gagne's Canadian, my bad. It's still very similar to American culture up there----the gist of the comment was that our culture is too soft to produce tough mentalities. A ridiculous statement. The idea that Dempster would draw Manny or Beckett is hilarious.

I liked Matt, but his usefulness as a player is rapidly expiring. He might make a very good coach.

yeah, but he's much more patient. I do like Brady---he's gritty and comes to play every day. His defense looked to me to be very good. But as the SLG indicates, he's a singles hitter Who cares??? If a guy can get on base, that's 90% of the battle. There's enough power in the lineup from the corner IF, C, and the projected LF. Honestly, when are people going to stop falling in love with bashers who K more than they reach base? :steps off soapbox: I don't know. When are people going to stop taking one comment and flying off the handle because of it?

Not necessarily my own view, fwiw. Who wrote that? I would also like to know. Aren't 3 of the best closers in history Eckersley, Lee Smith, and Eric Gagne? 3 Americans?

And the Cubs already had 8 candidates for the back of the rotation with similar ZIPS projections: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/cubs_signed_marquis/ Do we have any figures that ZiPS is an accurate predictor?

They were thinking that mediocre veteran pitchers are worth more than unproven prospects, which, interestingly enough, seems to be the way the baseball world is thinking now. Thankfully, Hendry has only been acquiring that type of pitcher via the free agent market. Before the offseason got too deep in moves, I was kind of looking forward to what the Dodgers would be like next year with a line up of: Furcal Ethier Nomar Kent Loney Martin Kemp Betemit Now, it's looking more like: Furcal Pierre Nomar Kent Gonzalez Ethier Martin/Lieberthal Betemit I wonder how much better they think their new line up is? They think it's much better. So do all the national talking-heads, who are proclaiming that the Dodgers have had the best offseason and could be the team to beat in the NL.