Jehrico

I never understood the fascination with Hairston when we got him other than many absolutely hated Perez. It was a little more than that...many of us were hoping we were getting a solid OBP guy. Hairston's OBP by year for the four years preceeding our acquisition of him went like this: .305, .329, .353, .378. That's four years in a row of improvement, and he was 28 when we acquired him, meaning we were getting a guy who was peaking and had displayed quality on-base skills. Plus, he was advertised to be pretty decent defensively too with plus speed (30 SB potential) when healthy. The only real knock on him when we got him was that he was injury prone. I thought it was a good pickup at the time when we got him. I would have liked to have gotten more for Sammy, but nonetheless, I had high hopes for JHJR.

Something tells me that Mateo is next, but Hill is safe.

That's not absolute? How am I putting words into your mouth? We don't need you to keep regurgitating the same thing over and over. I got it, and I'll tell you I know it at least as well as you. What you don't understand is how to apply it. If Neifi hits ..300 or so in a month with an unusually high BABIP, it's a good bet that it means he had a hot streak and isn't likely to keep it up. Why? Because he's beyond the end of most players learning curves, and he's proven over several years now that he's not modifying his approach. His abilities aren't magically going to improve. If Harvey goes through a similar unusual hot streak, you can't draw the same conclusions as Neifi, because there's alot more variables. That's why you're abhorrently wrong when you stated that he WILL return to his subpar performance, even if he doesn't change in all of the places you want him to. Granted, he's not going to be as good as he could be if he doesn't try to adopt more of a Dunn-like approach at the plate. But that doesn't mean that closing a hole in his swing, even with the same horrible approach as before, will yield positive results. The high BABIP in no way means he will return to the same production as before...only that the peak is an anomaly, and he'll regress to some level. The happy median between where he was and where he is now would be an outstanding improvement over what he did last year.

This is what really ticks me off with Baker still being around. Cedeno's walk rate is a little over half of what it has been thoughout the minors. I think it's a sign that Dusty's over-aggressive approach being pushed on him, and doesn't work with him. I'd like to see how he does after a couple of months with someone who preaches patience before making a determination one way or another. We could find that out this year if this was the case if Hendry would have canned Baker and brought someone else in, but I suppose there's no guarantee that the interim manager for the rest of the year would be any better or have any different of an approach. I don't like going into next season with the big question mark over him, but I also think it's premature to give up on him. As far as I'm concerned, this offseason is a crossroads for the Cubs and Ronny, and both directions are no-win situations.

You really should care. I should care that his BABIP indicates he likely won't keep hitting .370 with a .700 slg? I care about improvements, adjustments, and growth from prospects, and he's showing that. Stat's aren't everything. Also, nice job taking a small part of the quote out of context, while adding nothing to the conversation. I've said plenty on the topic of Harvey, even in this very thread. You can't just dismiss the fact that Harvey is on a hot streak when there aren't notable peripheral changes to support that. When a player has a hot streak that is almost entirely held up by Balls in Play(In August he's had a better go of it, although his power has returned to previous levels), it's worth pointing out that it's not sustainable and he will return to his previous subpar production without changes in those areas. And while it's true that "stats aren't everything", stats in the right context are very important. Looking beyond the stats should mean trying to find reasons to explain the performance/stats, not discounting the performance/stats out of hand. First, I don't get why some people have to grope for the one stat to find something negative in everything out there. I don't know if you think it makes you look smart or what. Second, when did I dismiss the fact he's on a hot streak? It's pretty obvious that he's not going to be able to maintain this peak he's on over the course of his career. I even stated as much that it was obvious earlier. It's been quoted on here several times that he's shortened his swing, and has looked to have a more patient approach at the plate lately. And while he may not be able to keep up a .700 slg among other things, he has been showing improvement every month of the year since he's started working on shortening his swing. I don't know what more peripheral things you want to explain the anomolies, but that's as much as you can ask for. His BABIP shows he's on a hot streak and will eventually level off. However, it does NOT support your contention that he's going to regress anywhere near as far as you claim he is. It's also more than just a little hot streak, as it's been going on for some time. I don't need you to explain what BABIP is, how it's derived, or what it means. I honestly don't think that you have any idea how to apply it to prospects. This isn't an absolute. Just because Harvey had a horrible last year and started out slow, you're translating a high BABIP as a guaranteed sign that he's going to regress to "previous subpar production." There's a big difference between cooling off, leveling off, and regressing to "previous subpar production." A high BABIP tells you he's on a hot streak, it doesn't tell you what he's going to do when that hot streak ends. There's a reason they have the whole minor league system...it's to work with guys like this, tweak their approach, and help them learn the game. Your application of BABIP completely ignores the natural learning curve that goes on with some of these younger guys in the minors.

You really should care. I should care that his BABIP indicates he likely won't keep hitting .370 with a .700 slg, or whatever it's been over the last month or so? I don't need BABIP to tell me that. Common sense will tell you that's not sustainable, and that he's going to have his slumps and hot streaks. I care about see guys like him make improvements, adjustments, and grow as they go along, and he's finally showing that. That's more important than anything you'll draw from his BABIP. Also, nice job taking a small part of the quote out of context, while adding nothing to the conversation.

Sometimes the Dusty bashing gets a bit overblown. Hendry forces his hand by getting a mediocre hitting, Gold Glove SS and Dusty responds by keeping a young guy playing by switching positions in a lost season, and even then he gets second guessed? And, IMO a Major League player should have no problem with this switch and especially going back to his previous position after just a couple of weeks. I can't believe he's not taking plenty of infield practice at both positions. Didn't Dusty make that decision before the Izturis trade?

Has the/any commissioneer ever denied a deal because of money?

I don't know about that...I think it would water-down the level of the absolute, sheer stupidity of Joe Morgan. Neyer at his dumbest is smarter than Joe Morgan at his smartest.

I'm still not high on him...but I'm happily continuing to eat crow...

No, it won't. Home runs are not balls in play; they are not counted in BABIP. The only way you can really try to justify that statement is by saying that fly balls that would have been outs have been leaving the park, reducing the number of outs on balls in play and increasing his BABIP artificially--and that's quite a stretch. More consistent power does offset a low natural BABIP a lot, though. If he can hit a higher number of balls out of play, he won't need to sustain a high BABIP to be productive so much. "He shoots, he scores! That was nuch easier than putting. I should try and do that every time." Adam Sandler on making a hole-in-one during Happy Gilmore. I don't care if his BABIP indicates this level of success is likely unattainable. This is one of those cases where common sense has to override the stats. When a prospect makes an adjustment, and you see continued improvement each and every month of the season as a result, it's a good sign, BABIP red flags or not. I don't think anyone expects Harvey to sustain a .600 or .700 slugging throughout the minors.. I do like the continued improvement, it bodes well that he is coming around, and this his approach is being refined, as it badly needed it. Here's another good sign: Even though his average and OBP are way up this month over last month, his slugging is actually down. I could be reading this wrong, but I take it to mean that he's getting pitched alot tougher than he was (I'd imagine as hot as he's been, he's getting fewer pitches over the plate), and that he's adjusting. He's not looking to pull everything out of the park, he's focusing more on waiting for a hittable pitch and just putting it in play. I'm not worried about his power, I'm worried about his approach and ability to adapt. The drop in slg despite a spike in average and OBP tells me he is adapting to how he's being pitched.

At this point, his defense is worse than Barrett's. 20 passed balls is awful. You have alot more pitchers in the minors with control issues than in the majors too...alot more wild pitches and pitches in the dirt. Still, it's not good, but I don't think it's as bad as it initially sounds...

I forgot...who did we trade Bay for? Bartosh. Oh my goodness...I had forgotten all about him. What happened to him this year?

This is similar to the argument against Rich Hill. At which point? Well, you can say he's bad now, because he is bad now. But he's 23, with less than a season of major league baseball under his belt. I'd give him at least 2 full years to see if you can get improvement, and unless he plateaus at this levels during that time, still give him a chance to show some more. Hill turned 26 back in March, which is why some are so down on him. I'm hoping a little more experience will increase his comfort, and he'll pitch as well here as he had in AAA.

I forgot...who did we trade Bay for?

This may belong in the transactions forum, but I think it belongs in this thread. What GMs out there are going to need a SS next year? Is this a case where Hendry value's Izturis more than anyone else, or are there any other GMs who would overvalue him as well? I wonder what a package of him and Murton or Jones would bring in the offseason...

They can't, unless they overhaul the OF offense. In the best case scenario I can imagine for this offseason, I can't imagine Hendry improving the OF enough by way of FA signings or trades to cover for having those two in the middle infield, unless they trade Aramis or DLee. As much as I think Ronny will prosper under a new manager, I don't like taking the chance with him and Izturis both starting. Hopefully, Hendry will find a taker for Izturis in a package for a big OF bat.

The light seemed to turn on for Cedeno offensively a month or so in at AA. He was solid there, and even better at AAA. He was good for us during his brief time last year, and again the first month of this season this year. Maybe I'm your prototypical naive, optimistic Cubs fan, but I think the problem might be the coaching. We all know how Dusty and Clines tried to mess with Murton's approach, because he wasn't "aggressive" enough. Look at Ronny's walk rates throughout his career. He's always been good for around .40-.50 points difference between his average and his OBP due to walks, even during his brief stint last fall. Now, after having been up with this coaching staff, he's sitting at just over half of his normal walk rate. Regardless of the acclimitization to the new level of competition, patience (or better put, walk rates) is one of the most predictive abilities to carry over from the minors to the majors. I truly believe if we get a good, OBP oriented coach next year, he'll rebound offensively in a big way. That said, I don't want to see him and Izturis on the field together. Trade Izturis, move Ronny back to SS, and pick up a good bat at 2nd (I like the Loretta recommendation).

Mitre and Nolasco don't fit on that list. Whether you like the trade or not, they were traded for a guy with a career average over .300 and a career OBP over .350, who was considered one of the elite leadoff men in the game. While I don't like the trade, I wouldn't classify those guys as guys we wouldn't/didn't trade for proven major league talent.

Who is this idiot anyways? Don't think I've ever heard him...

I hope you were being sarcastic. Cause I seriously doubt that Hendry would had recieved either Jay Bruce/Homer Bailey for Eyre or Howry or anybody in the org (not name Lee or Ramirez). I was exaggerating, but I still believe Hendry should have got involved if the Reds are giving up solid players for bullpen help. All I saw was that they gave up a PTBNL for Schoenwise...who's the solid players they gave up?

You can't call a league in the minors a pitchers league based on historical stats, as all of those pitchers that made it that way have been promoted. Also for every Jeter, there are 99 other guys who commit that many errors and never make it past AA. Same with Howard. I agree that there's too much bashing going on with Harvey, but I also agree that if he wants to become a productive major leaguer, he seriously needs to learn alot more patience. While he recent performance is pleasing, there's still alot of opportunity for growth that needs to take place before he gets his superstar prospect status back.

They're going for quantity over quality. Either that, or the lightning in a bottle approach patented by our beloved team. He had a fluke year in 2005 with a 3.32 ERA (his career stats, both minor and major, would indicate that it was a fluke), so I'm guessing they're hoping he'll suddenly be good enough to replicate that with them because he's done it once before.

I'm trying to be nice. I'm to the point where I'm sick of bashing this team and ready to find another way to spend my time. This negative crap is getting me in too bad of a mood too often. Here here. I don't see the point in bashing Mabry. He's been starting a lot of the time and shouldn't be, but that isn't his fault. I don't see how that is a defense of Mabry. The guy has been brutal all year, starting or not. He had a sub 600 OPS for a while. Just because he's started more than expected doesn't change the fact that he's been awful, a terrible signing and a waste of roster space. I think he has value if utilized correctly (i.e., as pinch hitter), but that Dusty hasn't done that. Its not really a defense of Mabry so much as its a criticism of Dusty. I don't buy that either. Every bench player needs to be able to perform if thrown into a starting role if a starter gets hurt. It's part of the game. I don't think anyone has a clause in their paragraph that says that they're only getting paid for a max of 250 or 300 at bats. You should step up whenever the team needs it. Now, if the manager isn't playing a player correctly, while that doesn't alleviate any blame from the player, it doesn't mean the manager is free from criticism either.

This team has not played fundamentally competent baseball since Baker arrived. Period. That in and of itself should be enough to move him out. I've seen too many teams run by him that don't play fundamentally sound baseball. Nor do they always seem prepared on any given day to put out 100%. I won't go so far as to hold Dusty 100% accountable for injuries to our stars, but he certainly has not acted prudently when handling the workload of pitchers. Wood is the case in point. Wood was injury-prone before Baker got here. Not Dusty's fault. However, Wood has been amongst the top of all of baseball in pitcher abuse points when healthy. If you have a guy with a history of shoulder and elbow problems, you don't regularly run him out there to throw 120 pitches a game. It's not just imprudent, it's downright stupid. I blame Dusty for not adapting to the game over the last 20 years. Granted, in his day, guys would throw 15-20 complete games a year while throwing in 4-man rotations, and alot of guys were successful. However, alot of guys fizzled out prematurely too. Some guys have the frame to handle the workload like that (Randy Johnson, maybe Zambrano, time will tell), some guys don't. There's a reason the game has evolved to include closers and 5 man rotations, which you just didn't find when Dusty was making his debut in the majors. The field of statistical analysis and prediction has also come incredibly far within just the last 10 years. I don't think anyone really know what IsoD was in the mid-90s for example. There are now more and better objective statistical tools available at a managers discretion than ever before. Dusty simply refuses to accept and use them, putting him at an huge disadvantage over his peers who do. I'm in no way advocating that statistical analysis should rule 100% of what a manager does, but Dusty doesn't even bother looking at hardly any of the advanced metrics that have come forth in the last several years at all. I'd be amazed if he could even begin to explain what isolated power or patience, or BABIP signifies. My other beef with Baker is that he was supposed to draw all of these big name free agents that would want to sign up to play for him. Name me one big-name FA that has come to Chicago to play for him? That doesn't even begin to address his absolute ineptness at making in-game decisions, or how he plays favorites with certain players (i.e. the bullpen and the bench, see Williamson's comments on the way out, and Neifi in general). Dusty needs to go. Yesterday.