Transmogrified Tiger

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.

If only there was something in his past that suggested Beckett might get hurt....

When they won 105 games and went to the World Series? Last year sucked. As I recall Morris and Carpenter weren't a huge part of that by the end of the season because of ineffectiveness and injury respectively.

Go below the main index and you will see "Mark all forums read". I think that's what you're looking for.

While I agree that it's premature to pencil in Greenberg at leadoff in '06, his .275 average comes with a .384 OBP. In the short term, he should be at the top of the order when he plays, and if he is able to keep up the pace he has been on, he should be given a shot to earn that future spot.

Maybe someday he'll be as good as.....Farnsworth. Maybe.

where have you been? that's the cubs' philosophy on trading their players. see farnsworth, sosa, cruz, hawkins, etc. Yeah, glad that Hawkins trade netted us a load of nothing. While it was a good deal, it doesn't change the fact that Hawkins was dealt while he was at his lowest point in performance, and therefore, likely trade value.

I don't recall seeing any comments like this during Dubois's stint as starting LF, or during Patterson's slide. That could be because both of those two's slides were chop-full of strikeouts. Tough to hit those hard and right at someone. I'm not talking about that specifically, as Dusty is obviously full of it when talking about Neifi being unlucky. My question is why he doesn't seem to come to the rescue of the other struggling players, i.e Dubois and Patterson, even if his defenses are entirely untrue.

I don't recall seeing any comments like this during Dubois's stint as starting LF, or during Patterson's slide.

:?: The forum? I still see it above Rivalries in Premium and Regular format.

I'll throw this out year since his name has been brought up. What about Dellucci as a trade target? His BABIP is right in line with expected, and he's been better on the road(.255/.417/.521/.938) than at home(.257/.397/.476/.873). Is Dellucci the one who had some procedure that he credits to improving his game(eye surgery maybe?)? He'd looks like he'd be a good fit in LF, and he's under a VERY reasonable contract(850k in '05, 950k in '06). Perhaps the Rangers view his performance as a fluke, and would part with him for some pitching help? EDIT: Yep, Dellucci had LASIK surgery this offseason, which he credits for his improved patience.

And isn't that a form of trolling? :-k What? The thing that I found funny is that some people who complained about LaRussa will readily admit anything bad about Dusty Baker, making such a change in focus fruitless.

Yep, 2nd too.

Yeah, Kelton left third base on his own accord, hasn't played there in nearly 2 years IIRC. Calling him up to play third would be pretty futile.

Hendry can't seriously be considering this. Wilson represents everything we do not want. Unless you're trying to use this as a smokescreen, any contact about Wilson is just a waste of time and resources.

It's so nice to know 3 of every 5 games we have a stud going to the mound. I missed that.

See baseball discussions. X-Rays negative, day-to-day.

I hate your avator+username. That robot scares the living hell out of me! And Im not a scared-ish type of person either. eeek!! Not a futurama fan then? Too bad.

Despite his antics, I doubt the Rangers are to the point where they'd deal Rogers, who's been their best pitcher.