Jehrico

Who the heck is ITI anyways? I can't ever remember hearing of them, much less recall them ever correctly scooping a big signing/deal.

Yes, because Zone Rating is a really reliable defensive metric. According to Zone Rating, in 2005, looking just at centre fielders, Jim Edmonds and Juan Pierre were just about defensive equals, Mark Kotsay was worse than Bernie Williams, and Andruw Jones ranked in the lowest quartile. Like it or not, it is reliable to show a trend in a player's performance, provided he's on the same team. Stadium, team, quality of a pitchers staff, etc, can have impacts on Zone Rating. Damon's numbers have declined every year in Boston, there's no reason to expect improvement from him next year, or even holding even. I don't dispute that there's been something of a decline in Damon's Zone Rating numbers, and indeed I don't dispute that there's been a decline in Damon's defence. He has lost a few steps of pace over the years, but the biggest factor was definately the collision with Damian Jackson in the 2003 postseason, which by his own confession still affects him today - he suffers from headaches, it's possible I'd suppose that his brain doesn't function quite as well as it used to in some ways, ways that perhaps affected his centre field play, and he's also maybe slightly more cautious in the field, perhaps just subconciously. Let's suppose for a moment I put any stock in Johnny Damon's Zone Rating, or any other defensive metrics. I don't think that a single 4 point decline (from .910 to .906) can be regarded as indicative of anything whatsoever given the enormous natural year-to-year statistical variations that are possible. For the exact same reasons, I don't think that a single 5 point decline (from .879 to .874) means anything either. And I don't think that two 4/5 point declines in three years is that significant, because it's improbable to anywhere near the extent that you could only attribute it to decline. No, the big problem for Damon, in terms of Zone Rating, still pretending that I put a great deal of value in it, is that after suffering the collision he then suffered a single 27 point decline, one that he showed little sign of significantly reversing in 2005. As such, though it's still too early to say, it looks as though his defence may have suffered permanently as a result of that collision in terms of Zone Rating. That's an observation that simply watching him play bears out to some extent. None of this validates any part of your theorising though. Your position that Damon cannot reasonably be expected to even hold his own in terms of defence as measured by Zone Rating next year is completely untenable, seeing firstly as you've based that conclusion on a statistical trend that you simply cannot say exists at this stage, secondly as year-to-year statistical variation works both ways, up and down, and thirdly because I suppose it's possible that Damon may with time overcome the collision. The brain's a complicated thing, and I don't understand it. If anyone else here does, please opine. Finally, the fact that Damon has suffered a one-off decline, or is suffering a gradual decline, which may be the case but right now is probably the less likely of the two possible explanations, doesn't necessarily mean that he's worse than Pierre at this stage. I can say quite definitively, and I did before, that Damon is still comfortably a better defender than Pierre, and that Damon is still above-average defensively at his position. I don't think it's necessary for me to run through the player's defensive skillsets again to explain why I think that that's the case, and I think my point about the comparative value of Zone Rating was well enough made in my last post that I don't need to repeat it. Close your eyes and ignore the trend all you want, he's still gone from .935 to .874 without any spikes. That's a decline, no matter if a couple of those year-to-year gaps are negligible declines. It's still a downward trend that has several years behind it to show it's not a fluke. By your own admission he's lost a step or two and isn't the same. I don't know why anyone's sticking up for Damon's defense. Murton isn't the strongest defender in left. Depending on who ends up anchoring right, having a subpar center fielder could end up hurting us if both corners are below average.

That's a really odd group to define as elite. I think he was picking out the best closer options on the FA market last year. Last year, nobody made out with a good closer in the FA market without getting ripped off. Gagne wasn't available last year. I thought he was FA eligible, but reupped with LA during the offseason...my bad...

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades? Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters. Agreed. Miles' credibility almost makes it as if a story does "break" when he confirms it. It never bothers me when Miles is scooped, as I genereally won't believe it until confirmed by Miles. I think some people are too hard on Levine, though. Even if Hendry were reporting rumors himself, he's have several ones that never pan out. Sometimes deals fall apart at the last minute, and the guys that break these rumors are left with eggs on their faces despite having reported accurately that "a deal is near..." Now, when they are reporting that "something is done," when it in fact isn't (ala the Pudge episode a couple of years ago), that's a different story. Levine, for the most part, is a pretty decent beat reporter. I agree with you on Bruce Levine. He is far superior to George Ofman who seems to read the papers for his "scoops". I'll go with Bruce Miles and Bruce Levine as the two best in Chicago. Levine at least admits when he is wrong, unlike many of the others. I'll tell you who gets on my nerves most, though he's not a Chicago reporter...is Ken Rosenthal. That guy was pretty good throughout the late '90s, maybe even as far as a few years back in the early '00s. But he's digressed into one of the biggest windbags in the business ove the last couple of years. I don't know if he tried to start getting more scoops than Gammons or what, but he's horrible now.

Really? Which team had a higher payroll during the 90's when the Yankees were on their run? There were several. The Yankees were near the top but not at the top. Jeter Bernie O'neil Posada Brouscus Tino Pettitte These guys were the core of that team and none were that expensive at the time they were winning it all Sorry, not to hijack the thread, but what ever happened to Brocious? He hit like .287 in 1991 when he was 34 years old. You'd have to assume he had more baseball in him, but he never played again. Odd... Do you mean 2001? Yeah, that's what I meant.

Really? Which team had a higher payroll during the 90's when the Yankees were on their run? There were several. The Yankees were near the top but not at the top. Jeter Bernie O'neil Posada Brouscus Tino Pettitte These guys were the core of that team and none were that expensive at the time they were winning it all Sorry, not to hijack the thread, but what ever happened to Brocious? He hit like .287 in 1991 when he was 34 years old. You'd have to assume he had more baseball in him, but he never played again. Odd...

I agree from what I've heard and read. Who do you think is the most reliable writer in Chicago when it comes to trades? Bruce Miles, although he sacrifices breaking the big story for reliability. I appreciate that after all the Bruce Levine disasters. Agreed. Miles' credibility almost makes it as if a story does "break" when he confirms it. It never bothers me when Miles is scooped, as I genereally won't believe it until confirmed by Miles. I think some people are too hard on Levine, though. Even if Hendry were reporting rumors himself, he's have several ones that never pan out. Sometimes deals fall apart at the last minute, and the guys that break these rumors are left with eggs on their faces despite having reported accurately that "a deal is near..." Now, when they are reporting that "something is done," when it in fact isn't (ala the Pudge episode a couple of years ago), that's a different story. Levine, for the most part, is a pretty decent beat reporter.

I want your crystal ball. You're basically guaranteeing that Howry/Eyre will suck in the near future while Ryan will absolutely improve on his stats. The Cubs should hire you right away with such unbelievable skills of prognostication It's no mystery. Look at the up and down natures of Howry/Eyre over their careers and the short term improvement they've experienced at an older age. What's your projection for the future? Yeah, they'll both put up 2005 numbers for the life of their contracts. Look at how the blankety blanking numbers trend for Pete's sake (i gave a link earlier in the thread). This is a fundamental concept in business/science/engineering. Please have some evidence to support your POV instead of blind opinion while calling my opinion looking in a "crystal ball" when I have given justification for my stance. I don't have anything to support Howry, but Eyre's stats have consistently improved since he was diagnosed and treated for ADD. I think that's significant to make him a safer bet. Howry, on the other hand, I don't know...

It sounds like they're quite the disfunctional couple. Probably some blame to go on both sides. Bradley is certainly no angel, but it's possible he isn't as bad as he's been villified to be. I don't know.

Yes, because Zone Rating is a really reliable defensive metric. According to Zone Rating, in 2005, looking just at centre fielders, Jim Edmonds and Juan Pierre were just about defensive equals, Mark Kotsay was worse than Bernie Williams, and Andruw Jones ranked in the lowest quartile. Like it or not, it is reliable to show a trend in a player's performance, provided he's on the same team. Stadium, team, quality of a pitchers staff, etc, can have impacts on Zone Rating. Damon's numbers have declined every year in Boston, there's no reason to expect improvement from him next year, or even holding even.

That's a really odd group to define as elite. I think he was picking out the best closer options on the FA market last year. Last year, nobody made out with a good closer in the FA market without getting ripped off.

I won't disagree with you, I'm not crazy about giving up anything decent for him either. But the argument is what can be expected out of him vs Damon, and if Damon would be worth the extra money. Looking at those factors in a vacuum, I don't see how anyone would be willing to shell out very much for Damon. However, looking at the big picture, I'm not crazy about either.

I would say that 27 is the beginning of many position player's prime years, but it's certainly not the peak. I don't know if anyone's ever done a study, but I highly doubt that 27 on average is the most productive year for most players out there. That's actually exactly what somebody did. 27 is the average prime year. That doesn't mean guys fall off cliffs at 28 or 29. What usually happens is players reach their peak at 27, but they can stay relatively close to that peak for several years after, a sort of plateau after the highest height. I find that hard to believe. Gotta link? Unfortunately, since I last read about all this at least 5 or 6 years ago, I don't have a link, but I can back up goony on this. In fact, I thought it to be common knowledge. Sorry, I still don't buy it. Look at the last 10 (different) MVP winners. Look at the All-Star game roster from this last year, and for anyone over 32, what were their most productive years? You had Bonds, not even close. Kent's most productive years were 29-32. Chipper Jones...27, you got that one. Sammy...2001 when he was 32. Larry Walker...30-32. Caminiti...33. Bagwell's best years were 29-33, other than the fluke season when he was 26. Go down the all-star rosters, league leaders in OPS, past MVPs, you'll find the majority of them do NOT have their best years at or before 27. The only explanation I can think of for your claim is your average role player who never does anything significant might peak at 27, and that's why they never did anything significant. I don't know. But looking at the quality players in the league, they don't peak at 27. I don't think Pierre, by any means, has necessarily had his best year. This BP article touchs on it a little bit... http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2659 Another Quote... http://www.baseballprospectus.com/library/Offense/Predicting/index.php I still don't buy it. The first link is based on 4 imaginary players...hardly proof of anything scientific or reliable. I don't have Bill James abstract, but I still disagree. I went through and calculated the average age of the 100 best OBP and OPS seasons in baseball, and the average age for OBP was 29.13, and OPS was 29 even. And again, go down the list of MVPs, and take the average age of their most productive seasons (not always their MVP year). I didn't go down through them all, but of the 20 or so I went through, all had superior seasons beyond 27. edit: typo in the last line, shouldn't say all, but rather most

I like this news. And it's not like I don't want Pierre by any means. I think he would be an obvious upgrade, I just don't want to give up 3 players (including Pinto) for him. If Florida is gonna wait, or trade him to the Sox and Damon is off the board, hopefully Hendry will then go after Milton Bradley. The only way I see Bradley as a Cub is if every other plan falls through, and LA releases him. I agree, but the only problem with that though is that Bradley will probably get picked up by someone else before that happens though.

Damon's defense has been in a slide for several years now. His Zone Rating in 2001 was .935, and it has declined since, coming in at .910, .906, .879, and .874. That's a trend that can be expected to continue. Pierre, historically, isn't as good. However, he posted a .884 last year. The year before that, he was hobbled by leg problems (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that resulted in a .848. His ZR went up each year at Colorado, took a hit when he moved to ProPlayer stadium, and had he had a normal '04, would have progressed while with the Marlins. His numbers seem to be improving, while Damon's have gotten steadily worse. He passed Damon last year, and I expect the gap to widen. My belief that Pierre's a better CFer extends beyond the ridiculous notion that he is "fast and athletic," but rather, it's based on Damon's precipitous decline in the outfield. If you follow trends, Damon's numbers suggest he's going to be a scary-bad outfielder in the very near future.

Dropping alot of money on someone who could make a difference (like Giles) is waaaaaaay different from dropping alot of money on someone like Damon when you can get a nearly comparable alternative for considerably less. That's the argument here. If Hendry offered Giles 4/60, he'd be overpaying, but I don't think you'd here much complaining, because there aren't any cheaper alternatives that could make that kind of difference like he could.

I would say that 27 is the beginning of many position player's prime years, but it's certainly not the peak. I don't know if anyone's ever done a study, but I highly doubt that 27 on average is the most productive year for most players out there. That's actually exactly what somebody did. 27 is the average prime year. That doesn't mean guys fall off cliffs at 28 or 29. What usually happens is players reach their peak at 27, but they can stay relatively close to that peak for several years after, a sort of plateau after the highest height. I find that hard to believe. Gotta link? Unfortunately, since I last read about all this at least 5 or 6 years ago, I don't have a link, but I can back up goony on this. In fact, I thought it to be common knowledge. Sorry, I still don't buy it. Look at the last 10 (different) MVP winners. Look at the All-Star game roster from this last year, and for anyone over 32, what were their most productive years? You had Bonds, not even close. Kent's most productive years were 29-32. Chipper Jones...27, you got that one. Sammy...2001 when he was 32. Larry Walker...30-32. Caminiti...33. Bagwell's best years were 29-33, other than the fluke season when he was 26. Go down the all-star rosters, league leaders in OPS, past MVPs, you'll find the majority of them do NOT have their best years at or before 27. The only explanation I can think of for your claim is your average role player who never does anything significant might peak at 27, and that's why they never did anything significant. I don't know. But looking at the quality players in the league, they don't peak at 27. I don't think Pierre, by any means, has necessarily had his best year. One could argue that some (or all) of the players mentioned were chemically enhanced which allowed them to perform at advanced (athletic) years. Granted, maybe some...but don't you think that some of the others that weren't ever all-stars or what not were doing it too? I think you would find 'roids on both sides of the fence.

If memory serves, both the CUBS and the Yankees offered Maddux more money than Atlanta did. In any case, it was all about Larry Himes and a lack of respect. It wasn't about the money. I recall that very well. The Cubs management at the time acted like a complete bunch of jerks towards Maddux. That's why he left. He actually called to accept the last Cubs offer, but they told him it wasn't on the table anymore, and they let him walk. Not giving him 5 years for $25 that saw him earn another 3 Cy Youngs because of him not recognizing his "position" in the bargaining process was also pretty irresponsible. It wasn't a disagreement about money.

I would say that 27 is the beginning of many position player's prime years, but it's certainly not the peak. I don't know if anyone's ever done a study, but I highly doubt that 27 on average is the most productive year for most players out there. That's actually exactly what somebody did. 27 is the average prime year. That doesn't mean guys fall off cliffs at 28 or 29. What usually happens is players reach their peak at 27, but they can stay relatively close to that peak for several years after, a sort of plateau after the highest height. I find that hard to believe. Gotta link? Unfortunately, since I last read about all this at least 5 or 6 years ago, I don't have a link, but I can back up goony on this. In fact, I thought it to be common knowledge. Sorry, I still don't buy it. Look at the last 10 (different) MVP winners. Look at the All-Star game roster from this last year, and for anyone over 32, what were their most productive years? You had Bonds, not even close. Kent's most productive years were 29-32. Chipper Jones...27, you got that one. Sammy...2001 when he was 32. Larry Walker...30-32. Caminiti...33. Bagwell's best years were 29-33, other than the fluke season when he was 26. Go down the all-star rosters, league leaders in OPS, past MVPs, you'll find the majority of them do NOT have their best years at or before 27. The only explanation I can think of for your claim is your average role player who never does anything significant might peak at 27, and that's why they never did anything significant. I don't know. But looking at the quality players in the league, they don't peak at 27. I don't think Pierre, by any means, has necessarily had his best year.

You mentioned the Cubs having not won it in a century...that kind of irresponsibility is a very big reason why they haven't.

I would say that 27 is the beginning of many position player's prime years, but it's certainly not the peak. I don't know if anyone's ever done a study, but I highly doubt that 27 on average is the most productive year for most players out there. That's actually exactly what somebody did. 27 is the average prime year. That doesn't mean guys fall off cliffs at 28 or 29. What usually happens is players reach their peak at 27, but they can stay relatively close to that peak for several years after, a sort of plateau after the highest height. I find that hard to believe. Gotta link?

Now you're being ridiculous. Damon also has a noodle for a throwing arm. Pierre is better at getting to balls, hence the better on defense comment. Actually, I've heard more in the media about concern for Damon's arm than Pierres. No, however, I'm not acting ignorant of the fact that the Cubs are owned by a publicly owned corporation who has obligations to it's stockholders, and I DO know for a FACT that they are never going to give Hendry a blank checkbook. NEVER. Therefore, they have limited resources, and the more of that resource you devote to one player, means the less you have towards others. Yes, he realizes the ramifications as far as future trades and what not comes along. That does NOT increase his budget. That does NOT erase the fact that the more you put into CF, the less that will be available for RF. Money can be freed up via trades, but the more he puts into other positions, the less he has for RF. Period. I would rather have Pierre and Abreu or Giles than Damon. Signing Damon would likely be prohibitive of getting a premier RFer. And Damon in no way brings you closer to winning the WS than Pierre. If signing Damon made us a definitively better club than Pierre, then it might be a different story.

The 2005 version wore me out too. Bradley has wore out his welcome with Cleveland and the Dodgers............can't imagine why Chicago would be any different I didn't have that much of a problem with the 2005 team themselves...just the piss poor management of the team. Neifi and Macias batting 1 and 2? Neifi and Corey? The blatant misuse of the pen? The absolute lack of fundamentals on the team? They obviously weren't prepared coming out of ST, and never did get over the hump. We were better than our record showed in '05. Not good enough to overtake the Cardinals, but at least wild card contenders, if the team was managed properly and prepared for the season. The '04 team, however, whined alot more and choked down the stretch. I'll have to argue with this. Regardless of whining or anything else, the 2004 team was far better both on paper and performance wise. There's no question about that. A lot of bad luck, including tons of games in a row with no offday, some blown saves, and basically slumping for the last week of the season cost them the playoffs. Add to that the fact that the Cardinals came out of nowhere to be great, so they couldn't just win a bad division like in 03 and then let the pitching carry them. Despite all that, sad as it is to say, they had the most wins (albeit by one game) of any Cubs team since 1998. I'd gladly take the 2004 team over what we had this year, or basically any team we've had in recent memory. I wasn't referring to the 2005 team being better than the 2004 team, I was referencing the disappointment of watching the teams. The outcome of the 2004 team, especially after all of the whining, and the choking down the stretch, made them harder to watch, and more disappointing than the 2005 team. I didn't mean to imply they weren't as good.

There's 31 other things about Ryan that you are more concerned about? I thought you were pretty high on him :lol:

What is everyones concern with overpaying!? It's not YOUR money and last I checked we hadn't won a championship in a CENTURY. You'd rather have Pierre than Damon? Explain to me the logic behind that, because it makes my brain want to implode upon itself. We'll, let me see...both are capable of getting on base at about the same clip (.353 vs .355 career OBPs), Pierre is better in the OF, is younger, and would cost considerably less. That's why I would rather have Pierre than Damon. The reason why some of us care about overpaying but some do not, is that some people do not grasp the concept of "opporunity cost." The Trib is only going to allow Hendry to spend so much money. The more he pays for someone when he could have had someone comparable for less, then that means he has less money to use toward a RFer. That's why I care about overpaying, I don't want $$ to prevent us from getting a stud RFer. I won't be disappointed if they signed Damon, as he'll be a good leadoff man, something we sorely need, but I'd prefer the cheaper alternative, it'll be better for the team in the long run. And if you think that Damon over Pierre means winning the WS, I think you're sorely mistaken.