Warpticon

But he's not a finished product!!!!!!!!!

I think his contention was that the same people who waver a bit on Dunn because of his "one dimension" are the some of the same ones who fawn over Pierre for his "all around game". Exactly. Also, over the last 3 years, Dunn's been a more accurate base stealer than Pierre. :lol: And I wasn't saying anything about anybody saying Pierre was better than Dunn in that first paragraph. I was talking about contradictive criticism, which is why I opened with "on a bit of a tangent." I honestly do not want Pierre, period. I could live if he shows up, but I'll be very disappointed if the Cubs end up with him, Furcal, Murton, and a stopgap in right. Especially since there are more productive options out there that won't require the cost in either money or players that Pierre looks to cost.

On a bit of a tangent, this just reminds me of people's selective reasoning. Why is it that a guy like Adam Dunn is constantly being criticized as being one-dimensional (despite being in the top one half of one percentile in both power and on base average in all of baseball), and guys like Pierre are called scrappy difference-makers who play the game right? Pierre is the epitome of a one-dimensional player. He hits balls on the ground and runs real fast. Sometimes that creates hits, of which 82% are singles. Sometimes he gets to second, but he's typically gotten out close to 1/3 of his attempts (this was one of the few areas he was actually better in last season). It's just funny (and by "funny" I mean "absurd") the way people selectively judge things. I'm down on acquiring Pierre for several reasons. * Pierre stands to make about 6 million minimum this year, which I think is overpriced for what he brings to the table. There are other options available which will be either cheaper or better. * The Cubs are pursuing Furcal. Not only is Furcal better overall (better slugging, much better base stealer, MUCH better defense more than make up for a 10 point difference in OBP), but he's also more highly valued because of his position. If the Cubs get Furcal, Pierre becomes completely redundant and essentially an inferior clone of Furcal. * Pierre's speed isn't a great benefit offensively. You can't tout his ability to beat out infield hits and his 200 hits as independent benefits, as one begets the other. So he gets 200 hits. Fine. If he doesn't get 200 hits, he becomes near worthless as a ballplayer, since he contributes little else--he never walks (just because he also rarely strikes out doesn't make this less of a downside, by the way), is weak defensively, and has absolutely no power. 2004 was out of line--he's a decent base stealer most of the time, but that doesn't make a huge difference. Somebody said "he still got 50;" While that's nice, it helps to be more effective. Somebody said "how many 35 HR hitters do we need?" This is interesting, as raw volume seems important with homers (which actually guarantee runs), but are the main component of stolen base accomplishment in some eyes. I disagree. * Pierre would essentially be a one-year rental, as Pie should be MLB ready before long. If we're going to rent somebody, I'd like him to be a lot less redundant and more all-around productive than Pierre is likely to be. I really hope that someday people will begin to realize that "speed at the top of the order" has pretty much always been an attempt to maximize the usefulness of guys who don't have a lot else to offer offensively, rather than some preordained rule for ideal lineups. Not caring about your leadoff man's SLG isn't unlike not caring about your #5 man's SLG. It's not as though it's not needed throughout the order; it's just needed more in certain spots than in others.

Come on, guys, this is a great deal. They want to trade us RRE for nothing!

I wasn't trying to post ignorantly, sorry. Back to baseball, wouldn't it be unfair to penalize a groundball pitcher who has a good strikeout:walk ratio but obviously doesn't strike out as many as a power pitcher who also has a good strikeout:walk ratio? Why would it be? Strikeouts are sure outs. Ground balls can produce base hits, advanced runners, or errors. It's not punishing one; it's rewarding the other, as it should be.

Whoa. The line for Corey bashing usually forms right behind me, but this is a bit much. The fact that he is going at all should tell you something about his "mindset." He's a professional athlete for goodness sakes. I'm sure he doesn't enjoy being awful at the plate. Let him go work on it, show up early for spring training- again, and let the winter play out. At least there is an effort to improve. Playing a 1/2 season of winter ball doesn't tell me anything positive about his mindset. It says he will do just enough to get his critics and Hendry off his back, but not as much as a player who really wants to reach his potential would. And I'd hope he doesn't enjoy being awful at the plate, but if I were in his shoes when asked by reporters if I'd consider winter ball, I'd enthusiastically respond with a: "YES! I'm having a very poor year and I have disappointed Cubs fans and the team, but I know I can do better. I plan on getting better by playing the game when most MLB players aren't: in winter ball." "But my game isn't the only thing I need to improve on. I'm also going to adjust my attitude, because there were times when I just didn't care about the game. Remember my 'It's just a game' comment? I'm going to work on my intelligence too." To clarify, though certain beat writers reported that Corey uttered the "it's just a game" comment, it was later confirmed that Corey actually said "it's just the game." Big difference. Carry on. I'm aware of that, but believe that his quote was "corrected" as a cover up. I think the first interpretation is correct because it's certainly consistent with his attitude. Oh, dear Lord. Corey's got enough issues on his own without people making things up.

Not to mention that having Manny in left and Nomar at third would actually make the defense considerably worse.

yup. millwood is leaving. that's $7M off the books right there. 9.5-7=2.5. Um, it's not like they're trading away Millwood, who had three years left on his contract. That's 7 mil off last year's books, but 0 off 2006's, since he's not under contract. Your point is fallacious. nope, considering they made the offer to him for over 7M next year. they have the room for his salary. And that has what, exactly, to do with '07 and '08? the offer was multi-year. dude, come on. Really? because doesn't exactly imply a three-year contract. And really, it's pretty much still irrelevant--just because they wanted to spend the money to preserve their pitching staff doesn't mean it's smart to use that same money to replace a 22 year old fine all-around player who's likely to keep improving at league minimum or thereabout, with an expensive, defensively indifferent, aging superstar who costs at least 18-20 times more. He may be better, but I'm pretty sure he won't be pitching 200 innings for the Indians. So, you're getting an attitude because I haven't followed Cleveland/Millwood contract talks to exact detail. And then you say: ...is this a joke? "You can spend money any way you wish?" You start off saying that not trading Sizemore and then some for Manny is "stupid," and turn around saying "you can spend money any way you wish?" How absurd. So to go from young and good to old, great, and several times more expensive without helping the pitching staff, which is what that money would have otherwise gone to, at all. How is this smart? Moreover, how is this SO smart as to render not doing it "stupid," as you claim? Sure, you can spend money however you want, but what does that have to do with anything? I hope you don't apply that princiiple to your everyday life. "Hey, I should upgrade from this Benz to a Rolls--if I refinance the mobile home, I just may be able to swing it."

yup. millwood is leaving. that's $7M off the books right there. 9.5-7=2.5. Um, it's not like they're trading away Millwood, who had three years left on his contract. That's 7 mil off last year's books, but 0 off 2006's, since he's not under contract. Your point is fallacious. nope, considering they made the offer to him for over 7M next year. they have the room for his salary. And that has what, exactly, to do with '07 and '08? the offer was multi-year. dude, come on. Really? because doesn't exactly imply a three-year contract. And really, it's pretty much still irrelevant--just because they wanted to spend the money to preserve their pitching staff doesn't mean it's smart to use that same money to replace a 22 year old fine all-around player who's likely to keep improving at league minimum or thereabout, with an expensive, defensively indifferent, aging superstar who costs at least 18-20 times more. He may be better, but I'm pretty sure he won't be pitching 200 innings for the Indians.

yup. millwood is leaving. that's $7M off the books right there. 9.5-7=2.5. Um, it's not like they're trading away Millwood, who had three years left on his contract. That's 7 mil off last year's books, but 0 off 2006's, since he's not under contract. Your point is fallacious. nope, considering they made the offer to him for over 7M next year. they have the room for his salary. And that has what, exactly, to do with '07 and '08?

yup. millwood is leaving. that's $7M off the books right there. 9.5-7=2.5. Um, it's not like they're trading away Millwood, who had three years left on his contract. That's 7 mil off last year's books, but 0 off 2006's, since he's not under contract. Your point is fallacious.

I would've thought a guy named Johnny Defendis would've been on the "best defense" list.

I can't stand this sentiment. Pie is a prospect. Damon is a known commodity. Who says Pie will even be able to smell Damon's jock in three years? Why bet on something when you can guarantee it.... Pie looks to be .5 to 1.5 years away from being an everyday major leaguer. he's one of the top three dozen prospects in the game, according to many sources. Proven commodities are good, but Damon isn't proven to be *that* good, and Pie still could be. Maybe he won't pan out, but how do you ever find out if you always go for the "proven commodity?" And it's not like *those* ever backfire, either, by the way. Right, Free Agents Beltr*?

Injuries are always a concern with Drew, but last season's situation wasn't really one of being fragile as being i a bad spot. (It was a 5/55 deal, by the way, not 5/50.) I'd be interested in taking the risk, if the Dodgers are interested in moving him, as a healthy Drew (I know, big if) is Giles minus 6 years. That'spretty good at 11 mil per.

Okay, what in the hell are you people talking about?

No, it'll be for 13.5 million. They will either pay him 13.5, or 3 million to buy out the contract. 3 million is sunk. it's 10.5 or 0. Ah, that's what was meant. I stand corrected, then.

Stuff like this makes me laugh whenever people complain about White Sox fans and their so-called "sour grapes" attitude. If people would shut up around here, I really wouldn't know anything about how White Sox fans supposedly act, but I sure see plenty of the same stuff around here.

Exactly how is putting on of your top OBP guys leading off, being stupid? Also how do you figure a guy with a .348 OBP is overrated as a leadoff hitter. And -- you consider 46SB's a few more than Cedeno will have, how? Furcal is one of the top five NL leadoff hitter consistently over the last three years, and plays a difficult position with exceptional skill. I realize that Cedeno may be a good/decent starting SS someday, but to say that Furcal is worthless or overrated is just plain uninformed. Judging by the Cub's positional player moves i.e. Bobby Hill, Choi, Brendan Harris, etc., they do seem to have a handle on which players they believe will succeed and which ones they should salvage in a trade. Furcal has a 3/4 SB/CS ratio. That's slightly above break even. you can generate the same number of runs by having someone steal on easy counts 4-5 times a year. That's the value of his stolen bases...not much at all. That's why I call him overrated. As far as defense goes, he was Mr. Error in '02 and '03. you're assuming his defense this year (which was way above career norms for him) is going to continue. It's not. This year was an aberration. If you want to compare him to a known quantity on defense, look no further than our own Neifi Perez, who has a better ZR, FPCT, RF, and less errors per start at SS. You are overrating his defense. No, .348 OBP isn't bad, but isn't spectacular either. It's definitely nothing to throw 8-10 million at when we have the same player OBP-wise in Todd Walker (actually walker is a few points better) for 2.5 million. No, saying Furcal is overrated is not uninformed. I didn't say he sucked. I said people's opinions of him were wrong. The problem I have with your argument is that you have to stretch the statistics to make your point. For instance your argument on SB, You claim: . Over the last 3 years Furcal has attempted 118 SBs and got caught 18 Times!!! That is an 85% success ratio, which is alot different than what you claim. Nobody is arguing that Walker shouldn't be playing in this thread and last time I checked Walker played 2b and Furcal played SS, don't see a conflict there. What is wrong with having two guys that get on base at a .350 clip batting 1st and 2nd? With Lee and Ramirez following those 2, it would make for a pretty decent 1 - 4. I hope you aren't insinuating that Neifi is a bad defensive SS? Problem with relying solely on statistics is that you have no clue under what situations those errors were made. Where they made after he got to a ball that most SS wouldn't have gotten to? How many plays did he make that other SS wouldn't have made? Will he benefit with having DLee at 1b? Yes, I know what Furcal's SB% is. It's still only slightly above the break even point. I don't need to stretch stats to make that argument. If he was anywhere near 90%, I'd pay extra to get him, but he's not. He's regressed in that department anyways, going from 92.6%, 82.9%, to 82.1% the last three years and that will continue to regress as he gets older. BTW, his career SB% is 78%, so I didn't skew his numbers. There's nothing wrong having two guys batting 1 and 2 with around .350 OBP. It is a problem when you're paying one guy 2.5 million to do it and the other 10 million. The only difference between the two players is defense and stolen bases. 7.5 million isn't worth that, especially when we have a better defensive option (neifi for sure and cedeno is debateably better) in house. the stolen bases certainly aren't worth much. he runs himself into outs, which is the most expensive thing you can do when you're trying to score runs. lol, i don't know what kind of situations his errors came in? they usually came on throwing errors from what i've seen, or just flat out bobbling the ball (i watch the braves on TBS every chance i get). it doesn't have much to do with his "extra range." if he is making errors on the fringe of his range, then he shouldn't be throwing the ball, just holding onto it. throwing it into the seats isn't good (he basically negates whatever SB he gets by giving the other team an extra base on an errant throw). Yes, furcal will benefit from having DLee at 1B. Who wouldn't? Cedeno would benefit just as much as furcal would in that department, so i'm not sure what your argument is. Furcal isn't a bad player, but he is one of the favorites of scouts based on "tools" instead of looking at just how much his production helps the team. He is overvalued. I can't beleive I'm saying this, but I'd rather have Neifi at SS (batting 8th of course, lol) and Walker/Murton going 1/2. We can make up production in the OF with the large amount of $ saved by not getting Furcal. I don't think there is anyway that Furcal gets $10M and if he does I would not be suprised if the Cubs passed on him. But, $8-10M for a team with the Cubs payroll is not going to break the bank or by any means keep them from acquiring other players. If they are bringing back Walker to start, you have 4 positions that are already filled (3B, 2B, 1B, C). I agree with starting Murton in LF to save some money, but that would leave three positions to be filled by FA or trade and quite a bit of money left to do it. Why would you rather have Perez starting than a substantial upgrade (offensively) at SS? Isn't the point to put the best team on the field? Furcal immediately gives the Cubs a threat at leadoff and a guy who actually gets on base. AND if Neifi did come back there is no doubt in my mind that Baker would continue to send him out at #1 or 2 in the lineup. ](*,) I think the idea is that, while Neifi is weak offensively, at least he'd be around 2 million instead of 8-10. Keep in mind what Cabrera and Renteria signed for last year, and explain why you don't believe Furcal will get that much--he's younger and more consistently productive than either of the other two when they signed. For that price, you can get much higher production out of one of the other need spots (CF or RF) than Furcal provides, especially considering that there are other possibilities available (Nomar and Cedeno) who are either higher ceiling or lower cost at SS.

:x :x UGH, do not like the sound of that at all.. (the bolded part) Jacque Jones or Juan Encarnacion, here we come.. bleh Then again, it's Paul Sullivan, so take it for what it's worth. Why not sign Brian Giles instead of making a trade...:evil: I guess Abreu fits this mold. I mean, he stole more bases than he hit HRs. But it is Paul Sullivan so I guess it doesn't really mean anything. Probably an under-the-radar shot at Dusty for putting speed over On-base skills. Man, if the Cubs got Abreu, I'd probably explode into a pile of goo.

Putting Nomar at 2B would definitely not help the middle infield defense drastically.

No, it'll be for 13.5 million. They will either pay him 13.5, or 3 million to buy out the contract.

You know, Cedeno's 21 and hit 370-something in AAA. And even with Furcal, somebody's got to back up SS and 2B (and possibly 3B), and it may as well be Ronnie. if he's really that limited in ceiling, then he's probably more valuable to us in that capacity than as trade bait.

I've said before that I prefer a Walker/Nomar middle infield, assuming you can get a managable contract for Nomar, with Cedeno backing up both positions, and Neify going far, far away. There is still hope for that situation.

I don't mind having Rusch around as the staff Mulholland. I do mind that his presence virtually assures a poor opportunity for any of the Cubs' young pitchers to break through. And I also mind that he got both a raise and an extra year in this process.

And also an early knock on him was that he lacked power. Granted, he isn't going to give Manny Ramirez or Barry Bonds anything to worry about, but I've compared him to Mark Grace before, and I'll stick by that. If we get Mark Grace-like production out of Murton in left, I'll be thrilled. Grace-like numbers would be quite agreeable, but I think Murton has more power than that. If only a little more. I could see 20+ HRs from him a realisitic possibility year after year. Gracie rarely topped 20. Never topped 20, actually. It was expected he eventually would, too.