Transmogrified Tiger

If by "rookie whiff machine" you mean the best hitter on our bench, then I'm with you.

What is it with our awful players and the Padres? Neifi with a 6 for 9 day today, and Macias last year with his 11 for 20 spurt against the Pads. Weird.

None of us have played, watched, or coached baseball before. It's a game we study in books and look up the box scores and stats on the internet.

In his career, Neifi Perez has played 6 games for a total of 19 innings at 3rd base. Fontenot would be a better decision, they're probably equally experienced at the position.

Reach for the stars.

Starting a guy who was 6/21 against the starter isn't exactly a great matchup to play, especially considering how much worse Perez is than Hairston at hitting RH pitching.

The first and only.

Cool. Knocking Reggie Miller out of the playoffs one last time would be an excellent cap to a wonderful season. I heard somebody on the radio yesterday talking about the Bulls' postseason chances, and he said he thought the Bulls "had a chance to pull off the upset in the first round". Assuming they are the 4th seed, would they really be the underdogs? I was under the impression that they had about the best record in the league since January 1 or something like that. Edited: mis-read: I think it depends on who they are playing. If the Pacers are the 5 seed then yes it will be considered a mild upset since the Pacers were considered one of the elite teams in the east. The Pacers were considered one of the elite teams in the east before they lost Artest and O'Neal. Yeah, but the Bulls got to the 4 seed in large part to the post presence that Curry provided. If he's not there in the playoffs, a team like Washington might be favored even as a 5 seed.

One of the possible reasons mentioned that Neifury is starting is that he's 6 for 21(.285) against Eaton with a HR. I still think that's not enough to play him, since 6 for 21 is only one good defensive play from being 5 for 21(.238). This is why sample size matters.

The original chit-chat thread. Did it make it to 1000 pages? I think it did.

Sometimes, there are no words to express the frustration, yet complete lack of surprise.

I wouldn't say that at all. While he didn't have a great year at Daytona, he would have started this year in AA. If he had an adequate season at AA, he'd have been in Iowa in 2006, and then possibly with the big club in 2007. There are a whole lot of guys who were in High-A ball last year who will be major leaguers by the end of the 2007 season. It's hardly rushing a guy to have him go one level per year. The real worthwhile gamble was leaving Hagerty unprotected, since he was coming back from a major injury and had hardly even pitched above rookie ball... plus he didn't look good last season. The likelihood of him being able to stick on a major league team was significantly less than the likelihood of Sisco being able to stick. Sure some A ball guys will make it to the big leagues, but how many of them, especially pitchers, will be able to stick there within 3 years. That's the key, since he can't get sent down. Also, I think it was learned on this board by some source this year that Sisco broke his hand in some incident with Ryu, although I don't think it was a fight. Anyone remember the specifics? EDIT: Or I could skip Vinestal's post entirely.

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty. I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone. I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used. Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year. I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though. For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so. OK, well can you explain again? I understand that there were questions about his maturity (wall punching) and work ethic (getting fat), but seriously, most 20-21 year olds are immature, and as for the work ethic - it's worth keeping a talented kid to try and hoping that he can be taught a better work ethic or can figure it out himself. It's not worth basically releasing a guy who is three years out of high school and still has a good deal of talent. He's not some guy like Josh Hamilton who is in and out of rehab... his problems weren't so severe that they couldn't be dealt with. Problem is that rostering him would have been rushing him pretty badly. He had an average to mediocre season at High A, and had weight/maturity/work ethic problems as you said. At that point, it's almost impossible to invision Sisco making and staying in the Major Leagues within 3 years. This would have been the scenario had he been protected on the 40-man, starting his option clock. By taking this gamble you control him for fewer years once he makes it to the big leagues, but it's a gamble worth taking when he looked as bad as he did all-around last year, and by rostering him you risk ruining him do to time constraints.

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty. I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone. I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used. Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year. I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though. For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so. I've seen it in some places and not others, and I seem to remember mlpeel saying something conclusive about it (which I can't find), but does this major league experience start Sisco's clock to where he has to stick in the major leagues in three years? I wasn't positive, as I remembered that post, then Tim said something here that his service time clock(6 year arbitration/free agency) starts, but does not start his 3 year option clock. At least that's how I understand it.

Someone failed to read the last 3 posts. :P Ack, I could've sworn I'd already read a post that came after that.

FWIW, Carpenter got rocked by the Phils today.

He looked very good. Considering he was brought into a game with the Royals already trailing 7-1, it appears they are going to ease him in with mop up duty. I'm pretty sure at this point he's as good as gone. I wouldn't be so sure. There's 157 games to go and he has to stay on the roster for all of them. While he looked good tonight, he may not the next time he's used. Yeah, but they don't give a crap if he pitches effectively for them because their team sucks. Derrick Turnbow sucked as a Rule V pick. Miguel Asencio was bad for the Royals in '02 but they didn't care because they thought he had potential. Johan Santana winning the Cy Young gives even more incentive for crappy teams to hang onto high-ceiling players for their Rule V year. I said it when the draft went down, Sisco would be gone. Thank God we have Rohlicek and Randolph, though. For crying out loud, that's not why he was left unprotected. IT WAS NOT TO KEEP OTHER PLAYERS ON THE 40- MAN ROSTER, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON IT. I apologize for the shouting, but it seems many people have ignored this being the chief reason for Sisco's exposure, despite repeated attempts to explain so.

Who is this not true for?

So don't double switch and let Rusch hit. He's better than the alternatives if you aren't going to use Walker.

What does one run below average mean? It means that in 10 games Macias played at 3rd, he cost the team 1 run compared to an "average" fielder. This year they project him with 37 games at third, and being three runs below average in that time. Kelton, anyone? Not sure if you were asking, but in his last stint at 3rd base, 29 games in '03 for Iowa, BP has him 6 runs below average. Thank you. Just curious... I wonder what the combined defensive and offensive numbers would be for Kelton vs. Macias. Of course, I'm pretty biased; I think Macias should be summarily executed if Hendry won't release him. Just kidding about the release part. Like VORP? Kelton projects at 2.8, Macias at -2.3. Of course, that considers Kelton strictly as an outfielder, so I don't know how his 3rd base defense would affect that total. Not enough to drop him 5 points is my guess though.

What does one run below average mean? It means that in 10 games Macias played at 3rd, he cost the team 1 run compared to an "average" fielder. This year they project him with 37 games at third, and being three runs below average in that time. Kelton, anyone? Not sure if you were asking, but in his last stint at 3rd base, 29 games in '03 for Iowa, BP has him 6 runs below average.

What does one run below average mean? It means that in 10 games Macias played at 3rd, he cost the team 1 run compared to an "average" fielder. This year they project him with 37 games at third, and being three runs below average in that time.

BP 2005 says that Macias was one run below average at third last year in 10 games, and predicts the same rate this year.

When Ramirez was hurt I think he might have come in at 3B a time or two. He was also a late inning sub for an OF, but I can't remember who.

Do you doubt that Rusch(or Zambrano) is more likely to help the team than Macias and Perez in that situation?