Tim

Howry had an unbelieveably lucky season. However, we have a GM and staff that has no idea what the acronym "BABIP" stands for or why it is important. In 2004, Cleveland had one of the worst pens in the majors - for much of the year it was ranked as one of the worst ever. In 2005, they had one of the strongest pen in the majors. It was mainly the same guys. Spending big money on the pen doesn't make sense unless you spend REALLY big money on the pen. And even that doesn't work very well. Most successful pens are built from home-grown guys, astute waiver-wire pickups and cheap FA's. Big money bullpens have a distinct tendency to be mediocre.

If Hendry were actually paying top dollar for good relievers, I'd agree with the strategy. Paying top dollar for middle aged relievers coming off career years is not a path to success in my mind. Some days, the sun shines on the dog's butt. But most days, it's still just a dog's butt.

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...

I wonder if the Twins could be convined to deal Francisco Liriano if we picked up something like 80% of Lowell's contract. So the deals would go down something like this... Deal 1: Cubs send: - Felix Pie - Rich Hill - Jerome Williams Florida sends: - Josh Beckett - Mike Lowell Deal 2: Cubs send: - Mike Lowell - Big pile o' cash Minnesota sends: - Fransisco Liriano The Cubs effectively trade Pie, Hill & Williams + cash for Beckett + Liriano. We'd have to put Liriano in the pen for a year until Maddux is gone, but he'd be a heck of a 6th guy to have available in case Wood isn't ready.

If Wood's on the 60-day DL I don't think he counts against the 40-man. There is no 60 day DL during the offseason. He counts.

Why? Sure Beckett's only 25, but he's never thrown 180 innings, and he's only had an ERA+ over 120 once in his career, and it was two years ago. Add in the fact that we don't have a hole in the rotation, and several of our better prospects are approaching the majors(including Hill), I don't see why we'd want to pay such an extravagant price for Beckett. From a pure stuff perspective, Beckett is one of the top pitchers in the game. He's been limited not by arm injuries, but by blisters. I believe he'll outgrow that and will be better off in the long run for not having run up the innings at a young age. To borrow a phrase from Will Carroll, he's through the injury nexus at this point and should be more reliable from here on out. Everyone has had him pegged for a huge breakout for a while now. I think his time has come. As for the fact that the rotation is already full...I'd still advocate signing Burnett, too (though it is obviously one or the other). I love Z, Prior, Wood in our rotation. I believe it is fairly weak after those guys, though. It hurts me to say that about Maddux, but he's nothing more than a bottom of the rotation innings eater at this point. I think Williams is going to get traded. I don't have that much faith in Glendon, either. BTW - does anyone know if Rusch actually filed for free agency? If he never filed, the Cubs can trade him at any time. If he filed, they have to wait until June 15th.

No, I'm working on the problem. It's been an issue for a long time and I was hoping it would resolve itself with the move to the new server. I haven't given up, though!

I agree with your position on Dope, but I think we all have to remember that it is a lot easier for a pitcher to stick after the Rule 5 draft then a position player. Sisco being able to be stashed in the back of the Royals bullpen is a lot more likely then someone keeping Dopirak on their bench for a whole season. Still better not to risk it with such highly rated prospect. -Banghart Detroit. Chris Shelton.

I wish I had thought of Quentin. :(

Boston was offering two minor leaguers for him.

If you tossed in Walker and got Castillo, we'd have the lead-off hitter with or without Pierre or Furcal. How about Pie, Hill and Walker for Beckett and Castillo? Would the Marlins do that knowing they still need to move Lowell to? I guess I just don't understand the obsession with leadoff hitters. Especially getting multiple leadoff hitters. I think our team would be better with Castillo over Walker. I like Walker, but if I could upgrade to Castillo I would. Well, neither is much of a base stealer. Castillo gets on a bit more, but Walker provides a lot more power. I guess the argument could be made that Castillo's defensive difference is bigger than Walker's offensive advantage and I could buy that. But I wouldn't give up a lot to make that upgrade. Beckett, on the other hand, is a difference maker waiting to not have blisters.

If you tossed in Walker and got Castillo, we'd have the lead-off hitter with or without Pierre or Furcal. How about Pie, Hill and Walker for Beckett and Castillo? Would the Marlins do that knowing they still need to move Lowell to? I guess I just don't understand the obsession with leadoff hitters. Especially getting multiple leadoff hitters.

Bah. Forget Pierre & Castillo. The best player being mentioned in all this is Josh Beckett. I'd offer Pie & Hill for Beckett. If I have to take on additional salary in return, I'll accept Castillo and add some token for him.

Why allow a social forum? Why have a rants forum? Why allow anything not baseball related? 70% of the posts on this board aren't 'necessary'. But the HCP were fun, just like a lot of the non-baseball aspects of this board. Can you justify that anything is necessary on this board? I'm still waiting for the justification that it needed to be cancelled. It was offensive to some and a divisive presence on the board. that's pretty good justification to take it off. The other things you mention aren't. Over half of the posts in Rants are offensive to somebody in the community, and most of those concern subjects that are actually worthy of a big fuss. Those battles will rage on, yet the harmless HCP has been snuffed. Many of the battles that are waged in rants also have value as a conversation (obviously not all). Also, that still doesn't justify its presence as much as also damn the other conversations. That rationale is akin to someone doing drugs because everyone else is doing it. That still doesn't make it right. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's a very fuzzy territory, though, and we do the best we can.

Why allow a social forum? Why have a rants forum? Why allow anything not baseball related? 70% of the posts on this board aren't 'necessary'. But the HCP were fun, just like a lot of the non-baseball aspects of this board. Can you justify that anything is necessary on this board? I'm still waiting for the justification that it needed to be cancelled. It was offensive to some and a divisive presence on the board. that's pretty good justification to take it off. The other things you mention aren't.

Other than the fact that it was allowed last year can anyone justify why it is necessary that we should allow polls about hottest chicks on a baseball website?

Not true. I believe the intent of your first post was to mock the moderators on this forum, which suggests to me that this discussion has a similar intent. I suggest you bring in up with Tim if your concern is an honest one, either via PM or email. The intent of my first post was actually to illustrate the extremely marginal difference between this thread and those that were removed from the site. I have every respect for Brinoch, I don't recall ever having a problem with him, I don't believe he's ever had a problem with me. What I wrote was not targetted at him at all. I didn't pass judgement on what's the right or wrong course of action either in relation to this thread or those that were removed from the site, I still haven't, and I won't, since it's completely unnecessary that I do so. What I think, not holding any position of authority here, is absolutely irrelevant. But either outright, undisguised and unashamed public mockery of the appearance of others is compatible with this being "a family site, welcoming to kids...", or it is not. If it is, and the fact that you've not so far chosen to remove this thread from the site suggests as much, perhaps you could care to reconcile that policy with the same one that led to you removing the other threads from the site? Diffusion, I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but it seems that in this case you are painting everything in black and white. Being a moderator for a site like this is anything but either/or. We do our best to adhere to the guidelines and principles upon which this site rests when determining what constitutes "too much" or "too far". We do our best to be consistent with that decision. It is very hard to write out exactly what meets that filter and what does not. Most of the time, we just have to go by gut feel on those decisions and I feel that we have assembled a pretty good team of moderators and we discuss these things before taking action when things are gray. It may not be the best way to do things. We're open to suggestions on how to do things better. If you feel that you could clearly delineate a set of rules of behavior that is complete and will not have exceptions or gray areas, please give it a shot and share it with us. Until then, we will have to continue down the path we have set. We are doing the best we can. If you have problems with the policies of the board or with how they are upheld, please let me know instead of taking shots at the mods through sarcasm on the board. Thanks.

Hello, all. There was indeed a problem. The issue existed somewhere between the registrar and the ISP. It's been resolved, so everything should be okay now.

How can Jazz not even be a choice? :!:

I just wanted to reinforce what Brinoch said. First off, this was a cumulative decision of the admins and mods. We realize that this is a popular feature during the offseason, but it has, in our opinion, gone too far and outlasted its time. Some things that are okay as a novelty just do not work as an institution. Secondly, this was becoming a very divisive issue for the board. I have always attempted to portray this site as a family-friendly environment and it was pointed out by many how these polls were a conflict with that stated goal.

what? you're not changing arm speed or delivery from your fastball if you're doing it right. it's the resistance the ball sees that slows the ball down, not arm speed. the forces on the arm should be the same. 12 year olds learn this pitch. it should be the second pitch you learn (after the fastball). How many pitchers in MLB have a really effective changeup? It is an easy pitch to learn to throw. It is hard to learn to be deceptive enough with it to be effective.

Neither Paul Molitor nor Edgar Martinez had overwhelming power, yet they are two of the most effective DH's of all time.

Ooohhh! contraction time, baby. Miguel Cabrera, come on down! I wonder if Victor will still be there at #3? :-k Man, I'm gone for a second and you're trying to get my best! :cry: Sorry, just kidding around. ;)

I'll give it a shot. Got it. Thanks for the help!

I am stuck on the project from hell. If anyone can put together the list of the top 50 free agents ranked by (and listed with) their 2005 VORP I'll be able to get this done much more quickly. Thanks for your assistance!