Transmogrified Tiger

And the fact that he's not the starter. I'd take Jones easy if it were me.

That's about the whole of it. They need to be the college version of the pre-Dungy Colts to win. Score all the time so that your defense doesn't get on the field.

What do you do with Chipper after '06? He's got a 15 million dollar option with a 5 million buyout. If the option gets picked up, he's got the same thing the following year. Someone else said a while ago that Atlanta has money set aside so they can pay Hampton without needing to cut payroll or other such measures. I think ltb.

in theory increasing his work load b4 the game will shorten his outing, but when you consider that he's throwing 30-40 pitches in the first inning, it might be better to increase his pre game load in a controlled setting rather than have him throw 35 pitches in a game situation.i dunno, just a thought But ultimately Prior is going to be throwing the same number of pitches in the game, just hopefully stretched out over more innings. There won't be any pitches saved by him being more effective.

I wouldn't mind Langerhans. BP 2005 says he's been slightly below average defensively as a CF, though on the other hand he's been a very good defender at the corner spots this year. If the price is right I'd nab him.

Lots of things in play with Burrell. He's a monster contract, but the Phillies may not need to move it, which means that you aren't likely to get him for cheap because of money. This year has been a big resurgence for him, can he keep it up? Can you be positive enough in that decision to make the investment in his behemoth contract? Also in consideration, he's not a great fielder this year, but has been average to slightly above average in the past. He's another RH power bat, which would guarantee the heart of the order being RH(not really important but throwing it out there). IMO, the circumstances add up against going after Burrell, but I certainly wouldn't mind him on the team.

dusty does things like play bad players and make them bat at the beginning of the lineup. this helps the cubs lose, because it costs them runs. since it costs them runs, it is reflected in stats like this. Yes but you could say that managers like Larussa get guys in late in the game in the right spots and wins them a number of those games. That is a manager helping his team win the game. You say i use the manger knows how to win as because i dont have any other arguments. Well whet is your facts that expected wins is a viable stat? I see it as nothing more then some stat nerd came up with but it has nothing to do with actual baseball. Its a formula taht says how many games a team should win based on run differential but dosent take into consideration a lot of other details that are part of the game of baseball. All a manager can do is put his team in the right situation. He really can't help the team, but he most certainly can hurt it. I agree that it comes down to the players performing, but a manger putting his team in the best situation most of the times defintley helps them win games. He's not the one helping the team though. Let me try and word this correctly. TLR decides to bring in Edmonds to pitch in a tie game in the playoffs. TLR is hurting the team for a multitude of reasons that you can obviously grasp. TLR correctly PH'es with Rodriguez over Taguchi because of R/L matchup or previous success or whatever evidence supports the decision. Rodriguez gets a hit. Good job for Rodriguez. TLR didn't help the team. He isn't the one who decides whether Rodriguez gets the hit. On the other hand, he IS the one who decides whether Taguchi or Rodriguez gets the at bat. If he makes the right choice, then he's not hurting the team. Basically, TLR or any manager for that matter can't make the team perform any better than it's ability, but he can through personnel decisions make the team perform worse than it's ability.

dusty does things like play bad players and make them bat at the beginning of the lineup. this helps the cubs lose, because it costs them runs. since it costs them runs, it is reflected in stats like this. Yes but you could say that managers like Larussa get guys in late in the game in the right spots and wins them a number of those games. That is a manager helping his team win the game. You say i use the manger knows how to win as because i dont have any other arguments. Well whet is your facts that expected wins is a viable stat? I see it as nothing more then some stat nerd came up with but it has nothing to do with actual baseball. Its a formula taht says how many games a team should win based on run differential but dosent take into consideration a lot of other details that are part of the game of baseball. All a manager can do is put his team in the right situation. He really can't help the team, but he most certainly can hurt it.

It'd be real nice if Mizzou didn't lose to Troy 2 years in a row. Also, I hope Michigan State wins, because one of my two teams has to keep faint championship aspirations alive. Right?

I don't view that as a problem. If it means Hunter plays elsewhere, I'm happy. Well, me too. I hate language.

Here's the problem: There's no way that you're getting Hunter for that little. It just isnt' going to happen based on his perceived value. Ryan's definitely smart enough to sucker someone(I'm looking at you Jim Bowden) into trading a bunch of talent for Hunter.

I think it's funny how the case against Lee is that his team is bad, and that he's only better than everyone else by a lesser margin in one category.

Hehehe....I figured you'd like him because of the way he looks at "new technology". Instead of flying the Cubs would be traveling by stagecoach. He may just mandate that the team go back to gloves without pockets, because "that's the way it was supposed to be". I also picture him saying that like Will Forte playing Zell Miller.

Prior is the one with the really specific pregame routine, the same one he's been doing forever with the sequencing from the towels to pitches(among other things), correct? Unusual, since the last 2 years he's been downright bad in the first inning, and in '03 he was lights out(.187/.241/.234/.475 line against)

As I've said before, the thought of Hendry getting fired and Hughes replacing scares me beyond all comprehension.

No. St. Louis Chicago Cubs 1 David Eckstein, SS Jerry Hairston Jr., LF 2 Jim Edmonds, CF Neifi Perez, SS 3 Albert Pujols, 1B Derrek Lee, 1B 4 Reggie Sanders, LF Jeromy Burnitz, RF 5 Mark Grudzielanek, 2B Nomar Garciaparra, 3B 6 So Taguchi, RF Todd Walker, 2B 7 Yadier Molina, C Corey Patterson, CF 8 Hector Luna, 3B Henry Blanco, C 9 Matt Morris, P Glendon Rusch, P Murton's 0 for his last 8, not in the lineup today.

Which would you rather have, Hunter in CF and Cedeno at 2B, or Patterson/Greenberg/Murton/Hairston/Trade target in CF, and Walker at 2B? I take Walker + whoever.

Yeah, if they really cared about winning they would've kept Sosa! That way they could've had an even greater sinkhole in the OF and had a 100 million dollar payroll. Then they'd care about winning to you, and that's all that matters. Good point. People who say paying off bad contracts shouldn't count on payrolls should consider the alternative. What alternative, that we kept Sosa and his salary? While I acknowledge Sosa's massive decline, Jeromy Burnitz didn't lead us anywhere to speak of. The organization's obsession with moving Sosa was an obvious distraction to bettering this team. While the club fielded an $87M team with respect to the "talent" under contract, it is unfair to blur the line and call it a $100M team that is inflated due to bad business decisions. Their may be $100M in expenditures toward the 2005 budget, but their isn't close to $100M in talent on the team. That is why its a lie in the context in which it has sometimes been used. 100 million in talent? We're paying Zambrano and Prior a combined 7 million. The point that LoneStar made was that the "illusion" of a 100 million dollar payroll is the fault of the Trib. If you want to say the talent doesn't reflect the payroll, then blame Hendry. The Trib isn't at fault.

that's what i was thinking, too. tim, your OBP projection [-X was a bit low. There are an awful lot of examples I could trot out of players whose minor league IsoD didn't exactly hold up during his rookie year. Especially when they're trying to break into a lineup managed by Dusty. For every Dubois there's a Choi.

I think you'd be looking more at .255/.310/.370 from a rookie Greenberg. He might eventually put up the numbers you list, but I don't think that's a realistic year 1 expectation. Admittedly I didn't look at Greenberg's numbers before I posted that line, and the nature of my post was hoping that he might be able to do that. I think you're line sells him a bit short. I'd think he'd be able to make a .700 OPS at a minimum. .250/.330/.370 maybe, Adam has always had a near .100 IsoD. I think you're underestimating how difficult it is to hit at that level in the bigs as a rookie. I love Adam's game, but he has struck out a bit too much in the minors and has too little power for me to think he could hit .270 in a full season in the majors in his first year. I also doubt he'd carry his full IsoD to the bigs. Yeah, That first line was definitely the high end of the spectrum. And even if he doesn't have the same IsoD, I still think he'll be significantly better than a .310 OBP.

hunter is not a stopgap, nor a long-term opportunity. his numbers are mediocre, even if he looks good being mediocre. Sad thing is that Hunter is pretty good as far as CF's go offensively. i'd rather put a non-CF in CF than overpay for hunter. Oh I agree, that's I why I said it wasn't worth it to get Hunter. Thing is though, there just aren't that many decent CFs out there. It's bad enough to make someone wonder if Patterson could return to previous norms, or even if Greenberg could hit .270/.350/.400 in CF. I think you'd be looking more at .255/.310/.370 from a rookie Greenberg. He might eventually put up the numbers you list, but I don't think that's a realistic year 1 expectation. Admittedly I didn't look at Greenberg's numbers before I posted that line, and the nature of my post was hoping that he might be able to do that. I think you're line sells him a bit short. I'd think he'd be able to make a .700 OPS at a minimum. .250/.330/.370 maybe, Adam has always had a near .100 IsoD.

hunter is not a stopgap, nor a long-term opportunity. his numbers are mediocre, even if he looks good being mediocre. Sad thing is that Hunter is pretty good as far as CF's go offensively. i'd rather put a non-CF in CF than overpay for hunter. Oh I agree, that's I why I said it wasn't worth it to get Hunter. Thing is though, there just aren't that many decent CFs out there. It's bad enough to make someone wonder if Patterson could return to previous norms, or even if Greenberg could hit .270/.350/.400 in CF.

Would anyone consider Hunter a good stop-gap until Pie is ready in 2007? He only has one year left on his contract, so it isn't like he necessarily be in our long-term plans. I'd take Hunter over another year of Patterson, that's for sure. And, with this year's free agent class, it isn't like there are that many quality outfielders available to us. Think about what Hunter's cost will be compared to his use to us as a stopgap. It's not worth it. hunter is not a stopgap, nor a long-term opportunity. his numbers are mediocre, even if he looks good being mediocre. Sad thing is that Hunter is pretty good as far as CF's go offensively.

Would anyone consider Hunter a good stop-gap until Pie is ready in 2007? He only has one year left on his contract, so it isn't like he necessarily be in our long-term plans. I'd take Hunter over another year of Patterson, that's for sure. And, with this year's free agent class, it isn't like there are that many quality outfielders available to us. Think about what Hunter's cost will be compared to his use to us as a stopgap. It's not worth it.

I agree that Damon would be better, but I wouldn't pay either 10 million, and especially not for the years that Damon wants. Damon's numbers away from Fenway aren't that much different than Hunter's.