David

The really sad thing is that most of these holes could've been filled with last year's free agent class. :x

Sure he won a series, but with a massive payroll, and he has only been a GM for 3 years. You can't even say he has a track record. You can't justify paying him as much as guy like Shuerholz, who had put together 14 consecutive division winners. It's not like he is a super genius. He let both Lowe and Martinez walk this year and did little to improve the bullpen when it was obvious it was pretty bad, and that is why they went out of the playoffs like lambs. I give him credit for Ortiz, Schilling, Millar and Foulke, but I think a lot of guys could have put together a winner with 140 million dollars. He is a good GM, but not elite just yet. What do you hire a GM to do? Win the World Series. Maybe more than once if he can. He did it. He went out and got the players that would win a World Series and they did it. They did it going head to head against a 200m payroll team. If Schilling was healthy all year this year, they might have done it again this year. If the GM who puts together a 140m team can't be afforded 1.5m or whatever it is he actually wants, I don't know what to say. Without him, they may have been sitting at home in October last year. There have been a few average-poor GM's who have won titles. Kenny Williams is a prime example. Should he get top dollar? It's not the amount alone that bothers me, but the amount relative to other general mangers who are better. Sustained success is more indicative of a good GM than one WS title. I just can't see how you can pay a guy with only 3 years experience mor ehtan a guy like Schuerholz, who has overseen the management of 14 consecutive division titles, 3 pennants and a Championship. Epstein is a neophyte GM, and you can't just pay him more money than guys who have done far more than he has, and done it for longer. Giving Epstein top dollar would be like making Miguel Cabrera the biggest contract in the game right now. Yes he has been impressive, but it been over too short a period to anoint him elite. Let him win a few more division titles and pennants. Bad analogy...Epstein will be a FA in a week, Cabrera is under the Marlins control for many more years. Plus, if Cabrera WERE a free agent right now, I don't doubt that he'd get one of the richest contracts in Major League history...

Neifi Perez. Bank on it.

Here's hoping that the Rockies give Neifi an offer that he can't refuse. Rotoworld speculates that the Yankees might have interest in him as well. Wow, FINALLY some good offseason news! Thanks for passing it on.. Now, let's just hope it's an offer he can't refuse.

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too. I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility. Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...?

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it? You couldn't tell that my answer's no? Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either. Cmon man. YOu should be able to tell that I was saying that Pierre's a viable option even though his obp over the past 3 years and his career (.350-355) aren't stellar. He's viable cause he's really fast, and he gets on base at a good clip. Anaheim, CWS, Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta have done well w/out stellar obpers. You're right. His 70-ish stolen base percentage makes him a viable leadoff option when Hairston isn't. How could I have missed that...

This is exactly the kind of statement that prevents teams like the Cubs from doing things well. You (and they) trust to conventional baseball wisdom rather than actually presenting any facts to help them out. So baseball managers have been batting speedy guys at the top of the order for 100 years. Show me something - anything - that demonstrates that that was a good idea. Or that that's what led to their success. Human beings were enslaving other human beings for thousands of years. Was that a good idea? People had assumed for an equally long time that the earth was flat. Did that turn out to be true? The point is that just because someone's been doing something for 100 years, it doesn't make is right. Give me some real evidence - and don't just say "look at Furcal and Marcus Giles' stats." Cite those stats, and explain how they support your point. Then maybe people will listen. I'll have to find the thread where I cited them. I'll just take the CW of people who have actually played the game over guys who wish they did. Sorry. YEA... we're just jealous cuz Dusty's been with better gals than we could ever hope!!

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it? You couldn't tell that my answer's no? Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either.

Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo. So if you believe that, prove it. Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005. I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense. When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point. so, in other words, you have nothing to back up what you were saying. It's ok, I dont think anyone thought you did. So you want me to look up several years of Marlins boxscores and find where someone else batted 2nd instead of Castillo. I'll stand by 100 years of baseball conventional wisdom. Castillo's just an aberration. Yup.. Conventional wisdom, God knows, is always right. Can't argue with centuries of history.. Hey, I better not go outside now in the rain, I might catch a cold. :roll:

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?

How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers. WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x Hairston's numbers last year were right on par with his lifetime stats. It is more likely than not that next years will fall right in line. I just don't see how a .334 OBP solves the leadoff problem. I guess if we're basing it on last year, and not, say, a significant last 3 or 4 years sample, Pierre's .326 OBP won't be of much help either.

How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers. WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x

I can't believe Giles would take that little money without even testing the market. I'll wait and see on this one.

No, I actually researched it myself rather than blindly following someone else's thoughts. How about Pierre himself? Hasn't seemed to help Mr. Castillo very much. Reposted from another thread from late July: Pierre hitting #1 2003: .302/.359/.370/.729 (667 PA's) 2004: .336/.382/.422/.804 (632 PA's) 2005: .272/.319/.357/.676 (385 PA's) Luis Castillo hitting #2 2003: .325/.389/.406/.794 (590 PA's) 2004: .285/.372/.332/.704 (488 PA's) 2005: .333/.423/.415/.838 (271 PA's) Their OPS's are almost perfect proportions. When one goes up the other goes down. I'm not saying that at all. People would say that Wood and Hudson are pretty comparable when Wood is healthy, and that's generally true. Why doesn't anyone say the same about Hairston and Pierre? For the nth time I'll ask: Why does no one think Hairston is a good leadoff hitter if he could just stay healthy? It's been said about Nomar, Wood, Prior, etc., but when it comes to someone who's been Pierre's double when healthy, not at all. because he has a .334 lifetime OBP. Why use career stats that go back several years when you can use much more pertinent recent stats... 3 or 4 years is definitely a good enough sample size to be representative of a hitter's current ability.

You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance. and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy. He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy. What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.

You're totally missing the point of his post...

Riggs and Baylor have coaching positions. I'd actually love to have him back. He was stuck with such total crap rosters while he was here (1998 the exception of course). And 98 was pretty much crap too. We just caught lightning in a bottle... Servais, Grace, Morandini, Blauser, Gomez(??was he still here??)/Hernandez/Gaetti, Rodriguez, Johnson, Sosa... I dunno.. Riggs wouldn't be my top choice, but I WOULD take him over Baker.

Please, somebody fix the spelling in the thread title, already... It's driving me NUTS... :lol: As for Furcal...If he weren't so aggressive and were less of a threat to regress to a crappy OBP, I'd be more interested. At this point, the risk in signing Nomar is very low and the possible reward very high. If I knew they'd go to Cedeno and not Neifi in the event of a possible Nomar injury, I'd be all for it. However, if it came down to Nomar with Neifi as a backup plan, vs. Furcal, I'd have to go with Rafael. I just cannot take another season of Neifi Perez as our starting SS...

ibtl Old news, check Transactions.. :wink:

Totally unrelated.. but does everyone realise that Jeff Blauser would've been a better leadoff option than just about anybody we used in 2005? And that includes his two big bust years as a Cub. I remember how happy I was that we signed him and his .400 OBP (1997)...while most just figured that we were just signing an old Cub killer. Anyway, the point was that as bad as he was those two years with us, he still put up OBP's of .340 and .347... Just goes to show just how sad our leadoff situation was this year.

If all they wanted was speed at the top, they could've stuck with Patterson in the leadoff role.

Hendry's name was mentioned in pursuit Preston last offseason and at the trade deadline. Ah, I knew about those. I was just thinking there might have been something new. I'm not too concerned about them going after him if that's the only basis for the rumors... Anything can happen, though.

Just curious, where are the Preston Wilson rumors that people are citing coming from? I haven't heard anything of the sort... If they're coming from the likes of Phil Rogers, that would explain why I haven't heard it..lol

Labels are fun! Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles. I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success. I love it when arguments are supported with facts rather than unfounded rhetoric! :D