17 Seconds

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-20-cubs-bits-chicagofeb20,0,5167297.story So...if Bradley is hitting cleanup, that means Ramirez has gotta be 3rd right? Cuz bumping Ramirez down to 5th just seems really dumb. So if that assumption is correct, you can put Lee 2nd, 5th, or 6th right? With Lee's dp's, I'd hate to put him 2nd, but that would let Soto be 5th. Soriano Lee Ramirez Bradley Soto Fukudome Fontenot Theriot

All I've read is that they "know a drug dealer" that they're currently questioning and that the entire thing is overblown so far. Who knows

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090219&content_id=3851020&vkey=news_cle&fext=.jsp&c_id=cle :(

I'm 95% sure that you don't even believe what you're saying right now. The "Shut up." PM you sent me was a nice touch too. It really made me think. You're right. You should always give up on stud prospects early if you have the opportunity to lock up a league average player. That's just common sense. League average players like Eric Byrnes just don't come around every day. Don't bother trying to get anything good for said prospect either, you don't need to. Just dump him for the other team's number 10 prospect. The priority should be to lock up that average guy long term. Now quick...somebody get Hendry to get Shapiro on the phone. It's only a matter of time before they lock up Garko and give away Matt LaPorta for our 10th best prospect (Shapiro is a good GM so this should happen quickly).

Consistently mediocre-to-bad. He's a corner outfielder fielder, not a middle infielder. All this "they were in win mode" stuff is making it sound like Byrnes is some great player. You're making it sound like they gave up on Quentin to lock up some really good player that wouldn't be replacable if you let him walk. So let's say you let Byrnes walk and let Quentin start in left. If he sucks, how hard is it to find an .800 OPS left fielder? Not hard at all. The risk of trading away Quentin and then him end up being a superstar was much higher than the risk of letting Byrnes walk and it costing them a chance at winning anything. He's Eric Byrnes. Byrnes is easily replaced. Quentin is not. Either way, the argument is ruined by the fact that they didn't get true value for him when they traded him. Was Carter even in the White Sox top 10 at the time? BTW, A 96 OPS+ is not really good for a left fielder, even with the good baserunning. He was bad the 2 year prior to his 2007, so 2007 was likely the aberration, not the other way around.

If you want to believe that Josh Byrnes didn't plan on trading Quentin when he signed Byrnes (even though there were rumors at the trade deadline of 2007 that they were already shopping Quentin), then that's your choice. I just think we both know what the much more likely scenario was. Edit: BTW that was a typo about Upton in center. It was supposed to be Young.

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors. I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future. IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton? So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles? They didn't do that. They signed Byrnes before they traded Quentin and once Byrnes was signed, it became a bad contract that they weren't going to be able to move. Quentin got them Haren, which in my mind is a pretty good deal. They probably never should have given Byrnes a long term deal, but since the damage was done, they made the best of the situation by trading one of their young stud outfielders for a stud pitcher, which they needed. With Byrnes hurt last year, they were able to move Conor Jackson back to the outfield, so it's not like they were left with no options. What? Eric Byrnes was extended on August 7, 2007. Carlos Quentin was traded on December 3, 2007. So they locked up Byrnes and then 2 months later realized he wasn't worth it? I think it's pretty clear that when they signed Byrnes they had a plan to trade Quentin in the offseason. I think it's pretty clear that they had designs on Byrnes in LF, Young in CF, Quentin in RF and Upton in AA. When Upton impressed with his September call up, they decided to trade outfield depth for a stud starting pitcher. He went .221/.283/.364 in his September callup. So what? You said they planned on Quentin in RF for 2008 and that those plans changed when Upton impressed in his September callup. So his .221/.283/.364 made Josh Byrnes go "man, I really wanted Quentin in RF next season, but I don't see how we can deny Upton that job after his 62 OPS+ in his callup. Screw it, I've gotta trade Quentin... it's the only way". Which is more likely... that scenario, or the fact that they had planned on Upton in right all along and trading Quentin? I'd think a GM has a plan when giving out a 3 year contract. I think it's obvious the plan was to trade Quentin. I don't see any other reasonable theory. They knew Upton was close to being ready and they knew Upton was locked in at center. There was nowhere for Quentin to play.

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors. I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future. IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton? So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles? They didn't do that. They signed Byrnes before they traded Quentin and once Byrnes was signed, it became a bad contract that they weren't going to be able to move. Quentin got them Haren, which in my mind is a pretty good deal. They probably never should have given Byrnes a long term deal, but since the damage was done, they made the best of the situation by trading one of their young stud outfielders for a stud pitcher, which they needed. With Byrnes hurt last year, they were able to move Conor Jackson back to the outfield, so it's not like they were left with no options. What? Eric Byrnes was extended on August 7, 2007. Carlos Quentin was traded on December 3, 2007. So they locked up Byrnes and then 2 months later realized he wasn't worth it? I think it's pretty clear that when they signed Byrnes they had a plan to trade Quentin in the offseason. I think it's pretty clear that they had designs on Byrnes in LF, Young in CF, Quentin in RF and Upton in AA. When Upton impressed with his September call up, they decided to trade outfield depth for a stud starting pitcher. He went .221/.283/.364 in his September callup.

and boom goes the dynamite They chose Byrnes/a bad contract/Carter over Quentin. Period.

And I don't know why you have to turn every baseball discussion into this dramatic episode of "As the World Turns". Seriously, it's a baseball discussion. It's not life or death. I'm pretty sure I'm discussing baseball. I'm not the one who just made a post about something else.

There is a pretty big difference between "I'd rather see Khabi out there than Huet" and "Oh god, we have to watch Huet flopping around out there tonight...great". Look through the thread. It's even been admitted by a poster that he irrationally hates Huet.

How is it a no brainer to hold on to the worst of your 5 OFs? The ink was dry on his contract. As I said, the crowded OF didn't all of a sudden come up in October. They knew what they had when they signed that moronic contract. Whether it was pressure from Moorad as rumored, or Byrnes falling in love with the grit, it was a terrible decision. Yeah, it's not like the Diamondbacks weren't aware that Upton was closing to being called up. They knew perfectly well when thy extended Byrnes that they were dumping Quentin, and that's a really bad move IMO. I don't see how you can justify that. If they traded Quentin for another top prospect that then ended up being the centerpiece in a Harne trade, okay. But that's not what happened. I don't know why people are acting like they traded Quentin for Haren.

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors. I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future. IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton? So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles? They didn't do that. They signed Byrnes before they traded Quentin and once Byrnes was signed, it became a bad contract that they weren't going to be able to move. Quentin got them Haren, which in my mind is a pretty good deal. They probably never should have given Byrnes a long term deal, but since the damage was done, they made the best of the situation by trading one of their young stud outfielders for a stud pitcher, which they needed. With Byrnes hurt last year, they were able to move Conor Jackson back to the outfield, so it's not like they were left with no options. What? Eric Byrnes was extended on August 7, 2007. Carlos Quentin was traded on December 3, 2007. So they locked up Byrnes and then 2 months later realized he wasn't worth it? I think it's pretty clear that when they signed Byrnes they had a plan to trade Quentin in the offseason.

Why do people keep acting like Carter got them Haren? Gonzalez got them Haren. They most likely could have gotten Haren without Carter. They should have Quentin AND Haren right now.

Then why do people in this thread always trash him? I'm just messing around though, no need to get all bent out of shape about it

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors. I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future. IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton? So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles?

Flip a coin, the two sides are average and dominant. wait what Did you watch the last 2 games? Yeah I was being sarcastic... everybody acts like Huet is trash but he's an above average goalie. I was just messin around

Flip a coin, the two sides are average and dominant. wait what

huet sucks

Getting rid of a top prospect so you can keep a guy who has poor career numbers because of his clubhouse presence is a bad move to me. I'd take the production over the clubhouse prsence every single day. And Chris Carter didn't allow them to get Haren. Carlos Gonzalez did. I'm sure they could have worked about something for Haren without Carter. Right now they should have Quentin in LF and Haren in the rotation. It wasn't one or the other.

Pretty muchmy thoughts exactly. I'd definately take him, but I don't see the point in trying to talk him up and act like his last 2 AAA stints were not his fault.

Again, I never said I didn't want him.

Wrong again. He is very good presently. While he's not an above average hitter, he's right around a league average hitter for a centerfielder. He's got good skills in the outfield and is probably pretty damn close to an average defensive centerfielder and he runs the bases pretty well. So overall he's produced as an average outfielder the last two seasons, despite his shortcomings as an OBP guy. He's done this as a 23 and 24 year old. He also had a very good three year romp in the minors where he has a career EqA north of .300 which bodes VERY highly for his development as a hitter at the major league level in the immediate future, since I know that power tends to develop most after he hits 25, meaning his power should only increase and should develop into a consistent 30+ HR centerfielder with average defensive skills. If OBP is his only deficiency he'll still be a well above average player. He's certainly a "good" player. To think otherwise is to be oblivious from reality. It's quite apparent. Did I say he was bad? No. I said he was unspecial. WHich is true. There you go trying to talk people intop agreeing you again, with the "that's stupid" and "you're oblvious fromr eality stuff". It doesn't work meph. Really I love the way you try soooo hard to validate your weak arugments though. You always find some sort of combination of numbers that you think can skew the argument in your favor, but they never end up being true. Then you make up fake stats. It's pretty funny. Chris Young is not "very good" presently. Stop trying to make it true. = ? So he's an average hitter for his position and an average defender. So how much that makes him "very good presently"? Either way, none of this matters. Quentin wouldn't have replaced Young. He would have replaced Byrnes. I suppose you'll probably whip up a "Meph Special" of stat combinations that might fool people into thinking Eric Byrnes is awesome

Sorry Meph, an .823 minor league OPS from a corner infielder is not good. I like the excuse you use for his sucking ass in his last 709 minor league at-bats though. Dude just caught a tough break. SOmething makes sense as long as it backs up your argument, right Meph? Congratulations on using the word stupid again though. P.S. I'd have no problem picking him up to back up Aramis. I just think it's funny how hard you work to try and validate false info.

Yeah Chris Young and Justin Upton are real mediocrities. Umm do Chris Young or Justin Upton play left field for the Diamondbacks? They traded Quentin to lock up Byrnes in LF. I already told you that. P.S. ... for the record, Chris Young isn't really good. When he posts an OPS+ over 91 maybe we can start talking about him being a good player. Not that it matters though, since he plays center, not left.