Transmogrified Tiger

Ok, so I'm wrong. I had never heard that that was where he was born. Huh... He was born in Curacao. But, apparently you dont need to be born in a country, to represent it. Pudge Rodriguez was born in New York, but is representing Puerto Rico. That's weird, will we see Carlos Delgado repping Australia next year because he vacations there each winter?

Yeah, it's not like Choi hit lefties as well as righties in the minors, and only has 57 AB's v. lefties in his major league career to make that assumption.

I don't think it's a huge deal. Most of these guys are pretty powerful hitters. Maybe they'll do US v. World like the AL v. NL of years past. That way you can get the most prodigious power hitters and some HR leaders. The thing that makes me the most upset is that Tejada can't defend his title. Has that ever happened?

Welcome. My experience is that it is the other way around. You'll find very few topics on here regarding the Sox, or usernames, or avatars that are anti-sox. On a popular White Sox board, there are many, icons, usernames, sigs, even forums dedicated to anti-Cubs material.

I'm pretty sure the fielder is entitlted to the basepath as long as he is fielding the ball. I didn't see the play, so I can't really judge in this case, but I don't think a runner has a right to knock a fielder out of the way that is fielding a throw, regardless of where they are in the basepath.

Shot in the dark, Little Big League?

I don't think there's any way you can say that you can say either guy deserves it over Clemens, unless you want to talk wins. Congrats to Ensberg, who's had a great first half.

Either Jones or Lee will look really bad. Choi and Teixeira in the finals.

According to mlbcontracts.blogspot.com, Abreu has only 7+ years of service team going into this season.

Exactly. It's not like Pujols is propelling the Cardinals to contention, although he certainly has a hand in it. On the other hand, the Cubs are probably 5 games worse without Lee's production. He's been more valuable to his team in addition to outproducing Pujols across the board.

Thanks for doing this. Have we had a high pitching prospect put up back to back good seasons? Seems like it's injuries, and breakouts followed by regression across the board.

that's why its amazing to me that phil rogers still picks Albert as the 1st half MVP. He is unreal. Let's get this straight Phil. Pujols and Clark deserve to win those MVP's, Pujols because he's close in the triple crown stats and because of Runs Created. Clark in 1987 had 164 RC to Dawson's 178. Clark deserved to win his MVP because he lead the league in OBP and SLG. Lee: .452 OBP .733 SLG, Pujols: .424 OBP, .598 SLG. Well, as long as you're consistently contradicting, I guess there's not too much of a problem. :roll:

Retrosheet doesn't know.

Actually Hill has been pitching since his Freshman year at the University of Michigan in 2000. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/rich_hill.shtml My apologies, I must've been thinking of someone else.

Getting away from the Dusty topic for a moment, thank you. I was going to post a comment on the very subject, but felt it would come across as whining if I did it. In my opinion, everyone sees what they want to see. My personal experience is that many people who go against the status quo or popular opinion regularly resort to attacking the poster rather than the argument(I am in no means suggesting anyone is this thread did or has done this, although it might be true, I don't know). Whether that is just the personality of the person, the frustration of being outmanned, or something else I don't know. Myself I try to avoid that sort of comment as much as possible, and I know that many of the people you would likely perceive as "regulars" or part of the "groupthink" strive to do the same. It's a thin line between saying "That's a really bad idea", and adding something sarcastic that crosses the line. I think it's unfair to characterize a group of people in the same vein, and furthermore, think it's more appropriate to contact a mod or admin if you have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure that's what they want and have asked anyone to do if they have a problem like that.

Specifically, Kearns probably would not be better than what we have. Stealing what Diffusion brought to light earlier, Kearns's major league success was at a ridiculously unsustainable BABIP rate, and since then he has regressed.

Yeah, because ARod and Kearns are at all comparable. Who the hell is comparing them? I have to keep restating that I commented earlier that Kearns may not be enough. My point has been that we have to look seriously at any deal for a quality major league need if someone came along asking for Richard Hill. I was being sarcastic by saying that ARod would get trashed here if we brought up a trade for one of our prospects, namely Hill. We need to wake up here, all minor leaguers are not prospects, Hill is one, but not one of our best. His value is as high as it's going to be, unless he becomes an all star, which I would bet my life on. Many people have suggested trading Hill for different players, and many people wouldn't trade Hill for Kearns. Hill is a prospect, and may or may not pan out, but someone who leads Minor League baseball in K's is not someone that I'd quickly trade away, and certainly not for someone like Kearns. I just think we should be careful to not delude ourselves over a 25 year old with two pitches who led AA (a pitcher friendly league) in strikeouts. IIRC, Hill was a pitching convert, so his age isn't as much of a problem, although it definitely has an impact. Hill's K rate stayed the same at AAA(a hitter friendly league) after being promoted.

Yeah, because ARod and Kearns are at all comparable. Who the hell is comparing them? I have to keep restating that I commented earlier that Kearns may not be enough. My point has been that we have to look seriously at any deal for a quality major league need if someone came along asking for Richard Hill. I was being sarcastic by saying that ARod would get trashed here if we brought up a trade for one of our prospects, namely Hill. We need to wake up here, all minor leaguers are not prospects, Hill is one, but not one of our best. His value is as high as it's going to be, unless he becomes an all star, which I would bet my life on. Many people have suggested trading Hill for different players, and many people wouldn't trade Hill for Kearns. Hill is a prospect, and may or may not pan out, but someone who leads Minor League baseball in K's is not someone that I'd quickly trade away, and certainly not for someone like Kearns.

Welcome to the Forum!

I'm not quite sure what your point is. First off, if you accuse me of assuming a rookie has no skill and that is why he fails and it is has nothing to do with Dusty. Well, aren't you doing the exact same thing - assuming the player has skill and he is failing because of Dusty? Let's look at the examples - Juan Cruz went to the Braves (an organization that hardly discriminates against rookies) and did so well that he was traded to Oakland (another team that values "young" players) and has since been demoted to AAA. Bobby Hill went to Pittsburgh and has done nothing. Hee Seop Choi went to Florida and than to L.A. and has never developed. If you want to argue that Dusty "killed their confidence" then go a head, but it is a stretch. By the way, how quick are you (or anybody else) to "credit" Dusty for turning Lee in to a MVP type player or turning an average Ramirez in to an All-Star? The problem is that Dusty can never get a fair break - if a player succeeds or the team wins it is because of their talent and if the player fails or the team loses it is because of Dusty. Dusty isn't instructing Lee or Ramirez or anyone else. It's an apples and oranges comparison. No one is saying that Dusty ruined those players because of the coaching he gave them. People are saying that Dusty ruined those players because of the playing time they got, which is something Dusty has control over. Ramirez and Lee had both had a good deal of success prior to becoming Cubs, and both are/were entering the prime years of their career. That likely has far more to do with their emergence than any instruction they received, whether from Dusty or any other coach. As others have said before, a manager can put the team in the best position to win, or he can hurt the team. And lastly, the careers of Choi and Hill and Cruz are partially irrelevant. The point is that at the time Dusty had them they were the best choice to play based on their Major League performance, yet Dusty stuck with the inferior player.

The question of trading Hairston should be one of timing. If Jim Hendry thinks the Cubs have a run in them to get back into the wild card lead, then trading Hairston now would be silly. He's been one of the biggest reasons why the Cubs swept the Marlins. The other thing to keep in mind is that we don't know if Todd Walker is coming back in 2006, and we don't know if Fontenot/Lewis are going to be any good on an everyday basis in 2006. Therefore, I submit that until the Todd Walker contract for 2006 situation is resolved one way or another, Hairston goes nowhere. That's reasonable Hoops, I just have a lower opinion of Hairston than others. With his baserunning, his OBP is decidedly mediocre, and even then his OBP is a little high because of HBP. His lack of power in addition to this means that he's no better than a utility guy to me.

deal. :thumleft: Right, why would we want our 3rd most productive hitter over the last month plus, to ever play? [April]Why would you want to bench our 2nd best hitter over the last month?[/April] [June]Perez has been horrible ever since May 1st[/June]

My brief $.02 Wood is good, wins are overrated. Trading Wood is improbable and probably not a smart decision. Burnett is overrated, he's helped a lot by Pro Player. His K's help that, but he doesn't strike out a TON of guys, and he's a past injury risk. Plus, as the premier FA pitcher, he'll be vastly overpaid. Zambrano is nearly the most desirable player in trade in all of baseball. Trading him for anything less than two OUTSTANDING players would be very very very bad. EDIT: For as much as people say that Wood hasn't been an "Ace" the last two years, his ERA+ last year was better than anything Burnett has done in his career(Excepting Burnett's 41 IP rookie year).

I'm not against the idea of trading Hairston. I'm not dying to ship him out, but if some team overvalues him, then go for it. He really isn't a long term option at any OF position IMO, and Walker/Fontenot's presence makes him expendable at 2B. That said, I will be very upset if I see Pie in Chicago this year. However, the dropoff in production from Hairston to Greenberg or revamped Patterson might be worth it to upgrade at corner OF. Of course, the scenario of a team with a quality corner OF to spare that overvalues Hairston is pretty slim, and he's not a burden by any means, so that's why you shouldn't actively shop him.

Diffusion's points about Kearns have sold me that he's not worth going after. Certainly not worth giving up a top prospect like Hill.