Transmogrified Tiger

So...when you pick them, you get them at their current contract status? So picking someone like Z you only get two years before he's FA (and he'll be expensive next year), but Verlander is yours for five more years? I'm not sure about 2-10, but Pujols is #1. I think he is talking pure talent wise TO START a franchise. Not taking in account the contract status. With that said this would bemy top 10: Alex Rodriguez Miguel Cabrera Derek Jeter Manny Ramirez Albert Pujols :twisted: Roy Oswalt Carlos Zambrano Vladimir Guerrero Carlos Beltran (yes, a surprise.....but still a productive 5 tool player) Grady Sizemore Jeter? Should he even be in the top 50? Even ignoring contracts?

I think you could make the case Cabrera should go number 1.

I gotta think Zambrano is somewhere near the top.

Year Age PA's OPS 2001 24 183 .979 2002 25 424 .798 2003 26 358 .871 2004 27 644 .853 2005 28 238 .808 2006 29 179 .901 This year he's on pace for 550-600 PA's.

hooray, Juan will be at a .600 OPS in no time now

Wow, we have some lineup brilliance(3-6) bookended by Dusty's typical stupidity(Womack's existence, Jones starting against a LHP).

Based on what I've seen, Molina profiles a bit better offensively and defensively. Since Molina figures to be a defensive catcher who won't hit very much, Soto probably profiles as a pretty decent backup.

Wow, that means with even luck that was a little below average he'd be hitting around .325/.460/.650/1.110

Soto has an excellent reputation as a defensive catcher.

Anecdote: I was one of the lesser hitters on the high school team I played for, when I played I was consistently DHed for. Despite that, if you had to pick someone who would be the best suited to be a coach hitting on our team, I'd probably be at the top of the list. Playing and coaching are two very different disciplines. Sometimes not being able to do something gives an appreciation for how it should be done, even though you can't execute it yourself. Looking at the hitting careers of Joshua, Clines, Sarge, Dusty, etc. is likely going to tell you very little of what they preach as coaches.

Bold prediction: Clemens gets rocked, regrets unretarin'.

Trade for Wilson and extend him, and steal Church from Harrisburg while we're at it. Now we have Murton and Jones to use to possibly get some pitching for next year if we're faced with an exodus of half our rotation.

Remember what the Orioles and Ponson did in his contract year? We should do that with Wood.

I don't think people wanting Cuban is a case of them wanting someone to step in and spend 300 million dollars. They see Cuban as someone who won't tolerate failure(even if the team is still profitable), and will make changes the Tribune wouldn't because of that.

haha, you're seriously not understanding/ignoring the entire point.

ok Seriously, what are you talking about with the title of this thread? it's called trolling. and yes, i'd rather have farnsworth than novoa, flowers, and moore. I think it is funny that this is considered trolling. If, for example, someone started a thread on a Cubs board saying "Who would you rather have now, CPatt or Pierre" that is classic trolling because it is just an attempt to rile up Cubs fans. However, the general attitude on this board is now so negative toward management that trying to bring up good things (yay - we now have upgraded our right handed relief corp) is viewed as trolling. Pretty wierd. i'll be all over the first guy who brings up not signing brian giles next year. :) ok, i do that already. :) Any contract Giles signed with us would've been for more than one year, so if you make that case now then it's still applicable then. The same doesn't apply to the situation you're falling back to. That's "critical thinking".

ok Seriously, what are you talking about with the title of this thread? it's called trolling. and yes, i'd rather have farnsworth than novoa, flowers, and moore. I think it is funny that this is considered trolling. If, for example, someone started a thread on a Cubs board saying "Who would you rather have now, CPatt or Pierre" that is classic trolling because it is just an attempt to rile up Cubs fans. However, the general attitude on this board is now so negative toward management that trying to bring up good things (yay - we now have upgraded our right handed relief corp) is viewed as trolling. Pretty wierd. The decision to get rid of Patterson and acquire Pierre happened in the same offseason. At the time of the deal, Farnsworth was under team control through '05. Since that decision only has a known impact through '05, it's pretty much irrelevent to compare it to a decision made this offseason. Furthermore, the way the thread was worded doesn't even imply this tenuous connection.

People missed Farnsworth because we didn't have anyone there, and because he was still relatively cheap for his production. This past offseason, and after Howry was signed, neither of those were true, and that's why there was no one pining for Farnsworth, and why your comparison makes no sense. Did you seriously not see the difference between comparing decisions made in different offseasons and comparing decisions that were/weren't made in one offseason?

He's been pretty decent prior to this year, but he's a 25 year old in AA. I'm not sure what his stuff is like though, nothing on him from BA or the McKamey prospect book.

Mizzou made it as a 4 seed! They're in a bracket with Pepperdine, UCLA, and UC Irvine. Congratulations on hosting a regional Pepperdine. You get to face Max Scherzer on Friday.

ok Seriously, what are you talking about with the title of this thread?

What?

Bonds is one of the best hitters ever with or without steroids.

Goodwin was 34 by the time he became a Cub. He hit .253/.298/.365/.663 as a Cub.

I agree it is likely to go up but don't put to much thought into it. How many Braves did the Cubs strike out Sunday? And how many runs did they give up? Things like baserunners and opponents average are cool but I don't care about K's as long as they get outs. I'll take a one pitch at bat where a batter pops out all day compared to a six pitch strike out. The theory is that pitchers don't really have much control of the outcome once the bat strikes the ball. A low K rate therefore can be a sign of impending doom. FWIW, Sir Sidney has never been able to miss bats, or judges for that matter. That's an interesting theory, but seems pretty weak when you consider that the two top pitching teams in baseball (Detroit and St. Louis) have horrible K/9 rates. Same for the White Sox. Last year, the top 2 teams (St. Louis and Houston) were pretty mediocre when it came to K/9. Historically, K/9 has very little correlation to the success of a pitching staff. Not only k/9 are figured but also HR and BB rate. I think one of those 2 might have been A LITTLE below average yesterday, no? A little below average yesterday, for whom? For alot of teams, I suspect. Regardless, a one-game example isn't going to tell us much. I'm guessing that K/9 is less important if you play good defense, and more important if you play poor defense. For several years, the Cards have had a mediocre K/9 number, but have been at or near the top of the league in ERA. I'm guessing alot of that has to do with solid defense. You're proving the point. Pitchers don't have a lot of control over balls in play, that's why defense has an impact.