Transmogrified Tiger

27-13 now, a turnover would be absolutely prime here

24-3, this is making me ill

3 tipped interceptions in the last 6 quarters, unbelievable

THE OPTION ON 3RD AND TEN!?!?!?!?!? 17-3

17-0. If there's not a pass that goes longer than 10 yards this drive, something's getting thrown.

Welcome to the worst case scenario. Throw the ball downfield, Christiansen.

LBJ put up 35 and 10 tonight, and the Cavs went down to San Antonio and took it to the Spurs. Sole possession of 1st place in the Central, woot.

But let's take this to its logical conclusion. If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy. Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea. So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit. Exactly, hence my inclusion of the bolded.

they're also out their first round pick, since they forfeited their legitimate one so they could get this guy without spending any extra money. Samardzija was a 5th rounder.

That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup. I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon. Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used.

Kansas lost to Toledo this year, and Toledo is 1-4 in the MAC. 1-4 IN THE MID-AMERICAN CONFERENCE. I don't think Snood would be able to take offense even if he wanted to. As rivals, I can't afford to give Snood ammunition for if they come into Columbia and win.

That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup.

That's ridiculous.

I don't see him getting 6/55.

Both are free agents following this season. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say Wells, as a 28 y/o CF, has a better chance to stay highly productive, longer, than the 29 y/o C who has a long list of injuries and plays a position where guys break down quickly. Ack, that's the second time I've messed that up too. Barrett hasn't been catching that long, and hasn't been hurt in 3 years. I think his positional value and the fact he'll be (much) cheaper to retain than Wells wins out over being further into his prime. There's also the thing that making that trade makes it harder to improve the offense since finding a new catcher that can hit is much more difficult than upgrading CF. Barrett has to been a catcher for long. He's logged nearly as many innings there as AJP, and is at the stage of his career, nearly 6000 innings, when lots of guys start breaking down. And how can you say he hasn't been hurt in 3 years? He was hurt multiple times this year, as well as last year. He was healthy in 2004, but he's missed time in just about every other season, and he had only logged about 3000 innings behind the plate before that season. We have to stop pretending Barrett is relatively new to the catcher position. You have guys like Fisk and Rodriguez who lasted a long time as productive guys at the position, but they had the DH to rest themselves. Bench and Berra switched positions in their early 30's. The Cubs have a decision with Barrett coming very soon. And the wise one might very well be to let somebody else squeeze the last bit of juice out of his catcher's frame, or move him to another position. Barrett isn't new to the position(in hindsight I worded my post poorly), but in terms of wear and tear on the body, the fact that he wasn't exclusively a catcher coming up is a big deal. AJP had 641 minor league games, and as far as I can tell nearly all of them were at catcher(baseball cube lists that as his position). Barrett on the other hand was a SS in rookie ball, then he caught for two seasons, and then he was a "C-3B" or "3B-C" for the remainder of his minor league career. That's at least 250 fewer games at the catching position than AJP, which isn't a small thing at all.

Both are free agents following this season. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say Wells, as a 28 y/o CF, has a better chance to stay highly productive, longer, than the 29 y/o C who has a long list of injuries and plays a position where guys break down quickly. Ack, that's the second time I've messed that up too. Barrett hasn't been catching that long, and hasn't been hurt in 3 years. I think his positional value and the fact he'll be (much) cheaper to retain than Wells wins out over being further into his prime. There's also the thing that making that trade makes it harder to improve the offense since finding a new catcher that can hit is much more difficult than upgrading CF.

Record of Cincy's wins: 15-27 Their only win over a team that isn't at least 2 games under .500 is conference opponent South Florida(who has yet to beat anybody above .500, 4-4 McNeese St. being the closest), who lost to one of the worst teams in the Big 12, Kansas. But they beat S Florida easily so what's your point? That neither are any good. The same way you can say "If Cincy had played bad teams they'd be 7-2", you can probably more easily say "Cincy can't beat anybody that's any good". That statement extends to USF, whose wins have a combined record of 10-30, with only Southland Conference power McNeese State being at .500 among those teams. And it's not like their losses are fantastic, losing to Cincy and to Big 12 bottom dweller(no offense Snood) Kansas.

I keep hearing about Barrett for Wells and it doesn't make any sense. They put up similar offensive numbers, Barrett plays a more scarce offensive position, and he's signed longer and cheaper. Like I said before, Wells doesn't fit our circumstances. If he were already locked into a contract that paid him fairly, or if he was coming off a down year and we could get him cheaply. But neither of those are true, so if we target Wells we're going to pay more than his value to get him and then overpay in dollars to keep him. I like Vernon, but I don't like him as a target right now.

Record of Cincy's wins: 15-27 Their only win over a team that isn't at least 2 games under .500 is conference opponent South Florida(who has yet to beat anybody above .500, 4-4 McNeese St. being the closest), who lost to one of the worst teams in the Big 12, Kansas.

oh come on, we can top that I'd assume that whatever we're rumored to be sending to NY for Sheffield would be better sent to Philly. Benitez sucks. Benitez ERA+ in 2006: 128 In 2004: 317 Career: 147 Benitez sucked in 2005, but he does not suck. He's no worse than Scott Eyre, that's for sure. He also gave up a crapload of baserunners this year and hasn't thrown 40 innings in 3 years.

Yep. 4 players to contention. 2B/Leadoff(Durham, Iwamura), Corner OF/power bat(Drew, Burrell), very good SP(Daisuke, Schmidt, Zito), less good SP(Kuroda, Padilla, Lilly). Keep the pen as is with Dempster and Wuertz changing roles, although if we can get rid of Eyre or Dempster's contract then we do it. Durham/Iwamura Murton Lee Ramirez Drew/Burrell Pie Izturis Zambrano, Daisuke/Schmidt/Zito, Hill, Kuroda/Padilla/Lilly, Prior/Marshall/Guzman/Mateo/Marmol/Ryu/Gallagher Ryu/Mateo/Guzman, Novoa/Aardsma, Ohman, Dempster, Eyre, Howry, Wuertz

Lots of undefeateds in the exhibition season. Mizzou plays UM-Rolla tomorrow night, and the Lithuania Academy on Monday.

I want to see Pie playing for the Cubs. But I'm not saving a spot for him if good alternatives are available. I've seen that movie too many times before. It's not Pie, it's Wells, and trading something as valuable as Pie for Wells.

What if Pie is part of the trade for Wells? Then we got hosed.

Eckstein winning may be worse than when Palmeiro won it a couple years ago.