Transmogrified Tiger

with all due respect, wagner and remmy aren't a comparable duo. unless you're talking about the fact that they have been largely overpaid. And are LH relievers that have reached free agency in their mid to late 30's. Take a look at Remlinger's seasons before he came to the Cubs. Sub .200 BAA 2 of 3 years, more than a K per inning 2 of 3 years, sub 1.25 WHIP all 3 years, etc. And with a pitcher who relies on heat like Wagner, he should deteriorate more quickly than someone who relies on deception and location like Slingblade.

NO Wagner. Learn from Remlinger.

an outfield of suspect arms. super. dunn has an average OF arm (no way does he have the gun for RF). murton and pierre both throw rainbows. i love what dunn brings to the table offensively though and his range isn't horrible for his size. we just can't have an OF full of crappy arms. we've done it before, re: 2003. please. you aren't honestly comparing the offensive production from sosa, alou, and lofton/cpat to lofton (years later), murton and dunn. lmao. great comparison. '05 dunn is roughly equal to '03 Sammy offensively, and '03 lofton was appreciably better than '06 lofton will be...so you're saying murton is far and away better than '03 alou offensively? :lol: He was obviously referring to their defense and throwing arms, IMO. no. he referred to being successful despite having crappy OF arms in '03. success comes from both defense and offense. '03 OF offensive production made up for the weak arms. that's what he's saying. by looking at the offensive production from that made up lineup (dunn, lofton, murton), it's easy to see the offensive production wouldn't be anywhere near the '03 OF, and therefore wouldn't make up for the runs given up due to crappy OF arms...and wouldn't be as successful as the '03 OF. Our offensive production from the infield is much better than '03. Ramirez wasn't great in '03 after the terrible production before his arrival. The Choi/Karros/Simon platoon wasn't as good as Lee, and we'd be hard pressed to be worse than Gonzalez offensively. Also, re: Dunn '05 v. Sosa '03, a 30 point OBP differential isn't a small thing.

Haha, preach that vigilante justice Ozzie.

Not at that age. When I was that age or slightly older, when our team got up big our coach just told us not to shoot. We played keepaway. Even more productive is seeing how many passes you can string together instead of scoring. Just running down the field and scoring can demoralize the other team, especially at that age and competition level.

Two more worth throwing out there: Frankie Muniz: LA Clippers Billy Crystal: LA Clippers Anyone who doesn't find it embarrasing to call themselves a fan of the Clippers is a true fan. John Cusack lives and dies with the Cubs. He goes to many games each year, and he usually refuses preferencial treatment. He likes to sit in the bleachers, or anywhere he can be with the fans. http://mlb.com/images/2005/10/12/oi7BlUW4.jpg

I don't think it's feasible to sign that many FA's of that caliber. I don't think it's possible(read: legal) to do so either.

I have the second lowest points this week, yet I win if Dunn holds my 3 point lead over the Jets D.

Crawford/Baldelli/Young isn't bad. If Young plays in the big leagues. It's going to happen soon, if not right at the beginning of the year. The D-Rays aren't going to compete next year, and Gomes isn't exactly a fan favorite that trading him and not replacing him with Young right away is going to kill fan morale(what little is left in TB). I meant the rumors about Young and Upton being kept at AAA all next year. Yeah, my point is that there's no doubt if Young will be up, just when. Gomes isn't someone who trading him for pitching help and replacing with a lesser player(Hollins?) to hold the fort for Young isn't going to cause the fanbase to be really upset.

Well, Lofton's about to fall off a cliff production-wise, so I wouldn't go after him under any circumstance. There's way too much risk for not a ton of reward, especially considering Dusty. Of course that doesn't mean we should go after Pierre either. He didn't fall off a cliff last year production wise. He can be platooned again this year, and if Patterson figures out what his problem is, then Lofton becomes a nice bench option. They could sign Lofton for about the same amount they paid Neifi. That's because his BABIP went up 60 points.

This almost makes up for Giles being pretty much off the market. Go on Jim Bowden, make it a bidding war.

Well, Lofton's about to fall off a cliff production-wise, so I wouldn't go after him under any circumstance. There's way too much risk for not a ton of reward, especially considering Dusty. Of course that doesn't mean we should go after Pierre either.

Well in that case let's just keep Patterson. His 2005 was terrible like Pierre's, and production wise they were pretty much equal in '04. Patterson held a slight edge in RC, Pierre had a slight edge in WARP2. Plus Patterson's a superior defender and doesn't cost you any players.

Crawford/Baldelli/Young isn't bad. If Young plays in the big leagues. It's going to happen soon, if not right at the beginning of the year. The D-Rays aren't going to compete next year, and Gomes isn't exactly a fan favorite that trading him and not replacing him with Young right away is going to kill fan morale(what little is left in TB).

Crawford/Baldelli/Young isn't bad.

Let me know how many seasons Hairston has posted 200 hits, or stole over 45 bases, or posted an OBP over 360, or struck out less than once every 15 times at bat (and roughly every 16 PAs)--OK?? What is the total on Hairston? Thought so. I'm going to guess you didn't read any of the responses that followed this post. Hairston when healthy has been Pierre's equal. If Pierre is so great, why don't we hear people saying "Hairston would be a great leadoff hitter if he was healthy" like we do with Wood, or Nomar?, etc. JHJ has not been Pierre's "equal", by any reasonable metric. Name me a player in the big leagues that strikes out less frequently than Pierre. Hint--it'll only take one hand, and JHJ will not be on one of those fingers. Runs created. VARP. Stolen base percentage. Runs scored. OBP. Defensive efficiency. I bore myself with actual data. Hairston--competent bench utility player. Pierre--bona fide leadoff guy that CONTRIBUTES to his team's success. Had an off-year in 2005. I'm ready to buy low instead of buy high for once. Look up. You can't tell me those lines aren't similar, if not creepily so. Listing off a bunch of counting statistics doesn't help, because Hairston's health has already been mentioned as a caveat. Pierre steals more bases, Hairston has more XBH's. Looking at rate stats, there's no reason why they aren't similar, and yet no one is calling Hairston an injury-prone quality leadoff man.

Let me know how many seasons Hairston has posted 200 hits, or stole over 45 bases, or posted an OBP over 360, or struck out less than once every 15 times at bat (and roughly every 16 PAs)--OK?? What is the total on Hairston? Thought so. I'm going to guess you didn't read any of the responses that followed this post. Hairston when healthy has been Pierre's equal. If Pierre is so great, why don't we hear people saying "Hairston would be a great leadoff hitter if he was healthy" like we do with Wood, or Nomar?, etc.

So you want me to look up several years of Marlins boxscores and find where someone else batted 2nd instead of Castillo. I'll stand by 100 years of baseball conventional wisdom. Castillo's just an aberration. That's quite the aberration, he's been hitting second behind Pierre for over 1500 PA's.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy".

That's a great article Rich. :P

How many times does it have to be said? PIERRE AND HAIRSTON'S NUMBERS OVER THE LAST FOUR HAVE BEEN NEARLY IDENTICAL. If Pierre's production is good for a leadoff hitter, then Hairston has to be considered the same when healthy.

No, I actually researched it myself rather than blindly following someone else's thoughts. How about Pierre himself? Hasn't seemed to help Mr. Castillo very much. Reposted from another thread from late July: Pierre hitting #1 2003: .302/.359/.370/.729 (667 PA's) 2004: .336/.382/.422/.804 (632 PA's) 2005: .272/.319/.357/.676 (385 PA's) Luis Castillo hitting #2 2003: .325/.389/.406/.794 (590 PA's) 2004: .285/.372/.332/.704 (488 PA's) 2005: .333/.423/.415/.838 (271 PA's) Their OPS's are almost perfect proportions. When one goes up the other goes down. I'm not saying that at all. People would say that Wood and Hudson are pretty comparable when Wood is healthy, and that's generally true. Why doesn't anyone say the same about Hairston and Pierre? For the nth time I'll ask: Why does no one think Hairston is a good leadoff hitter if he could just stay healthy? It's been said about Nomar, Wood, Prior, etc., but when it comes to someone who's been Pierre's double when healthy, not at all.

Again, I'm talking rates of production. I posted the numbers already, they've been mirrors for the last 4 years, but if you want to use numbers from 5+ years back to show how dissimilar they've been, go for it. And no, the Pierre distracts pitchers theory has been debunked. It's simply not true. Posting the rate of production and making a comparison with a player that can't even stay healthy and has only played half as many games as the other player is meaningless. Also, as CubfaninCA pointed out there is a 20 pt difference in OBP which IMO would be the most important stat for a leadoff hitter. Pierre has shown an ability to get On base at a .355 clip. That has got to be worth something. Again, why isn't anyone saying that Hairston is the leadoff hitter we need if he was able to stay healthy?

Again, I'm talking rates of production. I posted the numbers already, they've been mirrors for the last 4 years, but if you want to use numbers from 5+ years back to show how dissimilar they've been, go for it. And no, the Pierre distracts pitchers theory has been debunked. It's simply not true.

It is? So to you the ability of player B to stay healthy and produce at a higher rate than player A isn't worth anything? Have to disagree with you on that one. Did you read the rest of my post? I'm comparing the rates of production between the two, which have an uncanny similarity. Why isn't anyone saying that Hairston is the answer to our leadoff woes if healthy? It's because he's not a good option, and neither is Pierre.