Tim

Ohman & Novoa beg to differ. Not to mention Wuertz before he got overworked.

Jake Fox! :D

Maybe a few games better. But I just don't see how you can compare Dubois, Murton and Cedeno to Franceur, Johnson, McCann and Bettimit. I don't know why some people think playing kids is the answer. It's not. Playing good kids is. I will go on my soapbox again. They seem to always have kids who are already ready to play when brought up. Our guys seem to still have to be taught. Age is about the only thing our kids have in common with theirs. If Kelly Johnson had played for Dusty and gone 1-32 to start (or whatever it was), do you think he would have ever gotten another chance to come to the plate again? Was the difference that Kelly Johnson is that much better than Dubois or was the difference that he got a chance, he got good coaching and he received the confidence of his manager that he could go out and do the best he could without worrying about his job? I don't know the answer to that last question, btw. But I do know the answer to the first one.

Yeah, how dare you write all those logical articles!!!

Even if he performs well, it will just be because there's no "book" on him yet, though. :D Yeah, Dusty opened himself on that one. JVB didn't go to Virginia Tech or Florida State did he because from those schools usually get booked. Here I thought that was going to turn into a joke about those being schools where the students don't need books.

Thanks, guys.

Some people are calling for Giles to get 10 mill or more per year and 3-4 years. If the Cubs sign the soon-to-be 35 Brian Giles and stick him in right, bring back Corey to play CF and have Murton in LF, who is going to lead off? Furcal? Are you willing to pay the huge amount of money it is going to take to sign both Giles and Furcal when over the last 3 full seasons, Furcal's OBP in the lead-off spot is just .340? Why not spend a lot less to sign Damon and Nomar? Damon is 3 years younger than Giles, and can lead-off. Yes, Damon's OPS pales next to Giles's, but Furcal's OPS pales next to Nomar's. Signing Giles is great. He is just what the Cubs offense needs, but he is not a lead-off hitter. So if you sign Giles, you almost have to sign Furcal or deal Corey for a lead-off guy or sign Lawton to play LF and lead-off, but that means sitting Murton. Also, if you sign Furcal, it blocks Cedeno. But signing Nomar to an incentive-laden one year deal with a low base salary does not. The younger and lead-off capable Damon will likely command what you are willing to pay Giles. So why not kill two birds with one stone, save some money and years by signing Nomar instead of Furcal and leave the door open for Cedeno in the process? Lead off with Walker, hit Murton second, then whatever order after that. If Murton flops hitting #2, put Giles and his .422 OBP there.

Even if he performs well, it will just be because there's no "book" on him yet, though.

A little over 30 more minutes to vote...

Thanks, Vance. I guess it isn't all AOL IP's, then. Just a few important ones like Bruce Miles. :?

I appear to be having issues with AOL IP's at the moment. If anyone is on AOL and getting through to the site, please respond in this thread (or by PM). Thanks.

I take it from your response that you assign very little responsibility to Dusty for those two things, then? :D I have a tendency to blame him more than you, but less than some. It was very obvious back in 2003 that Kerry was being hurt by the long outings. One can make the case that you did and say that another injury for him was inevitable, but I think that Dusty hastened that day through his usage of him. As for Corey, I think he performed quite well over an extended time period from opening day 2003 through Sept 1, 2004. Yes, there were too many K's and not enough walks, but he was still a pretty productive CF during that time frame. It could just be Corey himself that led to this disastrous season, but I think Dusty's effort to turn him into a leadoff hitter and alter his approach contributed to that collapse. Again, I'm not trying to say Dusty was solely responsible, or even primarily respoonsible. But I think it's also wrong to ignore the potential contribution that Dusty made to what went wrong.

How much of: 1) Wood's injuries can be traced back to Dusty's usage of him when Dusty should have known Wood's injury history and had direct evidence of poor performance in games after long outings 2) Patterson's struggles can be related to Dusty trying to turn him into something he's not Obviously, each player bears a great deal of the responsibility for those failings. But the job of a manager is to get the most out of his players and I think Dusty put both of these guys into positions of failure. Given that those two things account for a great deal of what went wrong this year, how much blame you assign to Dusty for those things impacts how much of the blame he should get for the lousy record this season.

69 points of slugging is quite a difference between the two. Ignoring team-reliant stats (RBI), Lee has more hits, more doubles, more triples, more HR, more TB. Add in the fact that he's a better defender and I think it's easy to say that Lee has clearly been the better player up to this point in 2005. However, Pujols will get the MVP because: 1) He's earned it in past years by being the best non-Bonds player on the planet 2) He's playing for a winning team

Is Wellemeyer currently on the active roster? Because he as at the game yesterday.

It's one thing to be capable of a few innings of emergency duty in CF - which Murton probably is. It's another thing to be stuck out there day after day. Having Murton out there full time in CF would lead to a lot of extra doubles + triples the pitching staff would have to overcome.

And this is why Stone will never be a major league GM. As was mentioned, Cedeno is a SS, and his value is as a SS. That means you would be giving Furcal shortstop-type money to play 2B. There's really no point in overpaying for less production. I don't believe Stone suggested moving Furcal to 2B. It seems like something was lost in the translation. The idea is Furcal at SS and Cedeno at 2B. That's exactly what he said but he mentioned something about Cedeno moving from 2b to SS in the fall league which made no sense to me. I just wanted to post Stone's comments for everyone to read. Perhaps Stone was pointing out Cedeno has experience at 2B already, having moved from the position in the past? And therefore a move back to 2B isn't as big a stretch as might otherwise seem?While Ronny has received spot time at 2B in the past, he has been a shortstop throughout his minor league career.

Man, who's pitching against the Jaxx, Neighborgall or Ankiel?

Do you mean from SS to 2B? Because he's always been a SS in the minors.

And, more than likely, simply turn it into "he doesn't have enough speed to play CF" garbage. He doesn't have enough speed or superb enough OF instincts to make up the difference. He's played like two innings of CF that I know of and I believe that was because the CF left the game and someone had to play there.

Sure, it's possible to present such a stat. What are the batting averages of the players that hit behind him when he's on base versus when he isn't. If he's such a huge distraction to the pitcher that he impacts the game that much, those batters should hit, what, 100 points higher when Furcal's on base? (btw - without looking it up, I'd put money on the fact that they don't) A little while back I did a similar case study with Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo, since they spend the vast majority of their time hitting 1-2 over the last few years. IIRC, Castillo every year had worse numbers with runners on than without, and when Pierre's numbers went up from year to year, Castillo's went down, and vice versa. It was almost a perfect ratio with their OPS. I've done such a thing, as well and came to the same results. However, I've seen a much more comprehensive study that found that the top few basestealers in the league actually can have a measureable impact on the game. But it's along the lines of a few points better instead of 100. In other words, it was a measurable difference but one that I felt showed that it wasn't really worth that much anyway. Interesting, was that study done with the fast runner on base vs. the pitcher in the wind-up or was it done with a fast runner on base vs. a slow runner on base? To me, I don't see any validity in comparing a fast runner on base vs. no one on, there are too many variables; Pitching from the stretch vs. wind-up and the variation of a good start vs. a bad one. If the leadoff hitter goes 3-4 with 2 runs scored and the following hitter goes 2-4, did the second go 2-4 b/c of the leadoff hitter or b/c the pitcher didn't throw well? Of course, if both the leadoff hitter and second hitter go a combined 0-8, did the second hitter not hit well b/c no one was on base distracting the pitcher or b/c the pitcher had real good stuff. Personally, the variable of the pitcher's performance weighs more heavily in the outcome of the 2nd hitter than the theory of runner distraction. It's in the baseball forum somewhere. Mark Peel posted a link to it, I think back in 2003.

Sure, it's possible to present such a stat. What are the batting averages of the players that hit behind him when he's on base versus when he isn't. If he's such a huge distraction to the pitcher that he impacts the game that much, those batters should hit, what, 100 points higher when Furcal's on base? (btw - without looking it up, I'd put money on the fact that they don't) A little while back I did a similar case study with Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo, since they spend the vast majority of their time hitting 1-2 over the last few years. IIRC, Castillo every year had worse numbers with runners on than without, and when Pierre's numbers went up from year to year, Castillo's went down, and vice versa. It was almost a perfect ratio with their OPS. I've done such a thing, as well and came to the same results. However, I've seen a much more comprehensive study that found that the top few basestealers in the league actually can have a measureable impact on the game. But it's along the lines of a few points better instead of 100. In other words, it was a measurable difference but one that I felt showed that it wasn't really worth that much anyway.

Despite the decreased production of 3B in Baseball (minus this recent surge of Wright, Ensberg, Ramirez, Rolen), Nomar given his decline might not have the offense to become anything but an avg. 3B offensively while learning a new position.. True, but second basemen require just about the same range as shortstops. They also tend to get hurt more often than just about any other position players (minus catchers) due to the nature of turning two for a second baseman. I just don't see it as a good option for Nomar. I think he either needs to move to third to stay healthy or stick with shortstop to provide above average offense.

Sure, it's possible to present such a stat. What are the batting averages of the players that hit behind him when he's on base versus when he isn't. If he's such a huge distraction to the pitcher that he impacts the game that much, those batters should hit, what, 100 points higher when Furcal's on base? (btw - without looking it up, I'd put money on the fact that they don't)

SS's who become too fragile and have too little range to play short anymore don't move to 2B -- they move to 3B. I think it is extremely unrealistic to expect a Nomar move to 2B at this point. A move to 3B, however, makes a lot of sense for him.