Transmogrified Tiger

What does this even mean? Why would anyone even challenge your right to say something is unrealistic? But sure, I'd do so. Anything to avoid the continuing vague "you all" stuff that's been happening. First of all, this is unrelated to my initial point about making sweeping generalizations. That said, you're making it sound like there is a pro-stat cabal out to get everyone with an opposing opinion. Everyone here agrees with other people on some things, and disagrees with others on something else. Is there a lean towards statistics? Yes, because they help harbor objective/rational discourse. Many of the same pro-stat people you're talking about are the ones who scour the minor league forum to find updates from BA about how Patterson's defense looks according to scouts, and what velocity Gallagher's been hitting. It's about information. And when people come up with something that challenges that, especially if they're not prepared to defend their position, it's going to be met with opposition. It goes the both ways as well, and failing to see examples of people harping on the misuse of statistics would be(dare I say) "clueless to your posting environment" as well.

Really? I see it as close to 100% that Pie will suck offensively. How will that increase his trade value----when he's posting .280 OBPs and whiffing more than once per game? I don't get it. I don't see how you can see it as close to 100% that he'll suck.

That's not what I said. If you disagree or think something isn't right, then say so when it happens, instead of vague generalizations that don't accomplish anything more than you coming off with condescension. Haha, where in the world did you get that? I'm talking about making remarks about groups of people as a whole, whether they're pro-stat, anti-stat, or think stats aren't real. But if it makes you feel better to invent a pro-stat task force that snuffs out any opposing opinion, feel free. There's a lot of people who debate here passionately, if you don't bring it strong(no matter what your opinion is), people are going to call you on it.

I'm Chase Squared.

Yeah, most of his ABs have come in the 9-spot. When I have a little time, I'll go through the boxes and figure out how he's done against lefties and righties. milb.com has his splits through October, but they haven't updated since then.

Welcome!

First point of order. The proposal you're mocking was Murton, Marshall, Dempster, and Ohman for Dunn. Hardly the poster(DKWG for anyone that cares) living in a fantasy land trying to rip off another team. If you're going to use a hyperbolic example to make a point, please get it right. What really rubs me the wrong way is when people make generalizations like you just did about the entire board. Do people come up with unrealistic trade scenarios? Of course. Do people bash Hendry for a lack of moves? Of course. However, those are not all the same people. This is a very large message board, literally thousands of people are registered. Just because you see a lot of ill-advised trade proposals and see a lot of Hendry bashing does not mean it's the same people. And then, even if it is the same people, it's not even close to an arrogant POV. A lack of moves by Hendry does not prove that there wasn't anything worthwhile available. A person can have the opinion that Hendry should have made moves to improve the team, and simultaneously suggest a trade that he/she thinks will improve the team(however realistic or unrealistic they are). A great point. An obvious point. And one that could stand to be considered a little more often here. You got that, stupid people? It's unfortunate that you went that route in responding to my post. What's truly unfortunate is you continually posting digs at the entire posting community. It would be one thing if you continually tried to explain that some/most suggested proposals were realistic and were ignored before saying something like this, but that's not even the case. If you think someone is being unreasonable, then say so, state your case. Don't pull crap like "people on this board are.....". That doesn't accomplish anything. And even if you thought every last person had a wrong outlook on this topic, it would be much more civil to suggest that "we could stand to consider..." instead of from a condescending angle of you educating the ill-informed masses of everybody.

Wheaton is NAIA, no? From the looks of their website, they're DIII. On another note, the Braggin' Rights game is Tuesday. I can't wait.

A great point. An obvious point. And one that could stand to be considered a little more often here. You got that, stupid people?

I don't have a problem playing Pie. If you play him though, you have to play him. No platoons, and no demotions unless he can't hit for like 300 at bats.

Power is not just home runs.

The only one that really seems too far out of place is Murton.

It didn't appear to hold up when I looked up the statistics, but whenever I'd see DC play it seemed Adu was just a foul magnet. It looked like he could put the ball past anyone, but everyone would just put a body on him and take the free kick instead.

Church doesn't really have a platoon split, but both him and Pie are LH so I don't think a platoon is very feasible. Maybe this is the year Izturis's BABIP numbers aren't crazy unlucky, like in '04 when he actually put up some non-humiliating production.

Original Poster And Pie had 156 at bats against LHP last year. That split at Milb.com is from winter league.

Klesko and Ward on the same bench are redundant.

There's a rather significant difference between "closer by committee" and trying a reliever at closer until he fails, then trying a different one until he fails, and so on.

yeah, but he's much more patient. I do like Brady---he's gritty and comes to play every day. His defense looked to me to be very good. But as the SLG indicates, he's a singles hitter Who cares??? If a guy can get on base, that's 90% of the battle. There's enough power in the lineup from the corner IF, C, and the projected LF. Honestly, when are people going to stop falling in love with bashers who K more than they reach base? :steps off soapbox: Because Brady Clark bashes and K's more than he reaches base? An OBP near .350 takes a fair bit of sting out of that. But granted he's not worth the $$ Hendry shelled out for Pierre. You missed the point. Clark doesn't bash and he doesn't K a lot.

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003.

yeah, but he's much more patient. I do like Brady---he's gritty and comes to play every day. His defense looked to me to be very good. But as the SLG indicates, he's a singles hitter Who cares??? If a guy can get on base, that's 90% of the battle. There's enough power in the lineup from the corner IF, C, and the projected LF. Honestly, when are people going to stop falling in love with bashers who K more than they reach base? :steps off soapbox: Because Brady Clark bashes and K's more than he reaches base?

Am I losing my mind, or did he not retire and take an executive job with the Royals(or something like that)?

How terrible would you have to be to not make it to the All-Star game of the FOUR TEAM Nicaraguan League? I mean, it's hilarious enough that they have an All-Star game, and to be left off the roster just screams "you suck".

Well yeah, he might be worth it if he were able to repeat last year. But more likely he's going to revert to Michael Barrett levels of production, and paying him 9 figures will be a bad idea. Is it you that continues to compare most signings with Michael Barrett, if so...why the obsession of MB? Uh, I've continued to compare Wells to Barrett, because they're very similar offensive players. I haven't seen any other comparisons to Barrett from anyone though.

Nobody's perfect.

Well yeah, he might be worth it if he were able to repeat last year. But more likely he's going to revert to Michael Barrett levels of production, and paying him 9 figures will be a bad idea.