Magnetic Curses

listening to conservative talk radio yesterday (for a good laugh, obviously) when they started talking about this. you would be surprised at how many idiots called up saying that the proposal was "politically correct pandering", not that they even know what that means, they were either parroting words that the host used or just putting words together. here's a word for y'all: xenophobia.

Way out of it? That trade was in 2002, and as of the trade deadline in 2002 they were leading the division by 5 games. That was a classic buy from a buying team and has no relevence to the Cubs current situation. Whoops, i feel like an idiot go with San Diego trading for Brian Giles the year before they opened their park. They were out of it the year of the trade, but they wanted to give the fan base reason to believe they were serious about fielding a winner the following year. For them, it really helped build the season-ticket sales during the offseason. The Cubs may not need that as badly, but the positive publicity would certainly be beneficial for them. This brings up an interesting point: Would you rather see them tear this thing down, hire a guy with patience for young players and play kids around a few vets (for example, Lee, Z, and Barrett), or do you really believe they are only three or four good moves away? I am torn. I'm not sure how realistic this would be, but given the reports that Philly wants to dump Abreu to anyone that will take the full contract, let's say these trades + offseason signings were made: 1. Abreu for Hill + Harvey 2. Ethier + Broxton for Maddux + Howry 3. sign Jason Schmidt 4. sign Zito 2B Walker (re-sign him) LF Ethier 1B Lee RF Abreu 3B Ramirez CF Jones C Barrett SS Cedeno SP Zambrano SP Schmidt SP Zito SP Prior (when or if healthy) / Marshall SP Marshall / Marmol / Guzman / etc. RP Dempster RP Broxton RP Eyre RP Ohman RP Wuertz RP additional arm from plethora available I think that team wins the central and is WS - worthy. Schmidt and Zito are paid from the Wood and Maddux money, so the payroll just needs to go up for Abreu's salary. what about z? he'll probably get wood's money and he'll probably get it next season. i'm of the opinion that zito will be on the east coast, most probably, so schmidt would be our guy. and, as i've professed before, i really like koskie, clark, and freel--and think that they are somewhat undervalued and could be had for a reasonable price. (if anyone could fill me in on koskie and clark's contract status, i'd be grateful.) but supporting players with high obps to fill in around 3 big bats in the middle of the lineup would more than fill our needs. and a rotation of zambrano, prior, schmidt, hill, and marmol would satisfy me just fine. Unfortunately, Hendry doesn't value OBP hence; I don't believe he recognizes the need for high OBP around three big bats. As I've mentioned to my wife on many occassions, I'm convinced some of you could turn the Cubs around into WS contenders before Hendry ever does. the thing is, i don't know if hendry is purposefully ignoring the team's inability to get on base out of spite, to prove that you can win without getting on base-kind of like trying to pour the perfect beer down the middle of the glass. jim, you must use the side of the glass, i'm sorry.

Way out of it? That trade was in 2002, and as of the trade deadline in 2002 they were leading the division by 5 games. That was a classic buy from a buying team and has no relevence to the Cubs current situation. Whoops, i feel like an idiot go with San Diego trading for Brian Giles the year before they opened their park. They were out of it the year of the trade, but they wanted to give the fan base reason to believe they were serious about fielding a winner the following year. For them, it really helped build the season-ticket sales during the offseason. The Cubs may not need that as badly, but the positive publicity would certainly be beneficial for them. This brings up an interesting point: Would you rather see them tear this thing down, hire a guy with patience for young players and play kids around a few vets (for example, Lee, Z, and Barrett), or do you really believe they are only three or four good moves away? I am torn. I'm not sure how realistic this would be, but given the reports that Philly wants to dump Abreu to anyone that will take the full contract, let's say these trades + offseason signings were made: 1. Abreu for Hill + Harvey 2. Ethier + Broxton for Maddux + Howry 3. sign Jason Schmidt 4. sign Zito 2B Walker (re-sign him) LF Ethier 1B Lee RF Abreu 3B Ramirez CF Jones C Barrett SS Cedeno SP Zambrano SP Schmidt SP Zito SP Prior (when or if healthy) / Marshall SP Marshall / Marmol / Guzman / etc. RP Dempster RP Broxton RP Eyre RP Ohman RP Wuertz RP additional arm from plethora available I think that team wins the central and is WS - worthy. Schmidt and Zito are paid from the Wood and Maddux money, so the payroll just needs to go up for Abreu's salary. what about z? he'll probably get wood's money and he'll probably get it next season. i'm of the opinion that zito will be on the east coast, most probably, so schmidt would be our guy. and, as i've professed before, i really like koskie, clark, and freel--and think that they are somewhat undervalued and could be had for a reasonable price. (if anyone could fill me in on koskie and clark's contract status, i'd be grateful.) but supporting players with high obps to fill in around 3 big bats in the middle of the lineup would more than fill our needs. and a rotation of zambrano, prior, schmidt, hill, and marmol would satisfy me just fine.

In what bizzaro universe was John Koronka a top-tier prospect? Maybe not a top-tier prospect, but the #3 starting pitcher on a .500 team appears to be more productive than anything the Cubs have gotten from Bynum. I don't think anyone in the Rangers organization is complaining about this deal. koronka is pretty terrible. he doesn't get a ton of ground balls and he doesn't strike many people out. this is a recipe for a mediocre pitcher who will be sitting on his current 5.02 ERA the rest of his career unless he develops another pitch that's 1,000 times more effective than what he has now. maybe it's his near .800 OPSA that's so attractive? or maybe it's the fact that he's 6-6 on a pretty decent offensive team? yeah, he's great, the cubs should have never traded him. now THAT'S sarcasm.

I value stats as much as the next guy, and I also typically watch hundreds of games every year at all levels. I do not put a lot of stock in defensive metrics. Watching players and their reads, lines, quickness, etc all give a better idea of their value on defense. Outfield assists do not tell me how strong or accurate a player's arm is. Stolen bases do not always give an accurate representation of a players speed. Stats typically cannot show where corrections can be made to improve aspects of a players game. There are plenty more, I'm sure. There are a lot of things stats cannot measure and/or predict. Aside from some listed by Pedro, there's the big one, playoff series. Playing the odds gets you into the postseason. But once in, anybody can get hot, or lucky. Stats don't determine who will win before the season begins. But a smart GM can look at stats and use them to create the best odds for his team to get to the postseason. This is where Hendry has failed. He's terribly inefficient, and puts the team behind the eight ball repeatedly. It's not that it would be impossible for the Cubs to win with Hendry's style, or with Baker for that matter. It's just very difficult. I definitely agree with both of your comments here. This team does need to do a better job of raising both the teams OBP and SLG. I just question comments like the one above where it is said that if I can get a high OBP, that's sufficient no matter how little speed, defense, and so many other things that cannot be measured. It's a balancing act between those two extremes that can make a team really good. The problem I have with this team is that we have almost none of those components. Out of the 4 components: OBP, SLG, speed, and defense-speed is the only one we have a decent amount of. The problem is, speed is the one element that by itself doesn't work very well. It can be extremely valuable when paired with a high OBP for example, but you can't steal first base. I'm all for increasing OBP and SLG-I just don't know about swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side. It would be better then this side of the pendulum-that's for sure, but I just wonder if somewhere in the middle might be better for a team. To explain, I just wonder if a team with good OBP, good SLG, good speed, and good defense might be better then a team with great of the first two and terrible speed and defense. I think at that point it might come down to how much that pitching staff needed the defense behind them I guess. OBP and SLG should never be mentioned in the same tier as speed and defense. defense is more important than speed, but speed is just a peripheral talent that is beneficial to possess if you have the other skills.

having less strikeouts has nothing to do with having a higher obp. for example, the cubs rarely strike out this season and have the worst obp in the NL.

"Attitude, hustle." Sounds like he's right up Hendry's alley. His bloody nose early this year will probably make him about an additional $10Million over his career and a rep as a valuable "charachter guy" that someone will undoubtedly overvalue. He's an average player, at best. There are probably 10-15 guys in AAA that can match his overall production. On a side note, with the Sox struggling, I can't wait until we start hearing people bemoan the Rowand trade because it stole away the Sox's "Heart and Soul" or whatever inane garbage. Thome has single handedly won about 20 games for the Sox this year with his power and presence in the lineup. It was a masterstroke by Williams, and if they hadn't made that trade, with the pitching they've gotten this year, they's be out of the race. I think that is quite an exaggeration since many AAA players never make it to the majors, let alone become starters in CF for a World Series winner. I agree that Thome has saved the White Sox this year, but they expected some production out of CF and haven't gotten any. Thome has been an outstanding addition to the Sox, but they have missed the production and "Heart and Soul" that Rowand has provided. The Sox were even rumored as possible trade partners to get Rowand back. You don't think there are 10-15 guys in AAA who could hit .275 with 13-15 HR and play good defense in CF? We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Also, as for the last paragraph, take Thome off this team, and put Rowand back, and the Sox are at .500 right now, even with all the red-ass-ness, want to, character, whatever. If there were, they would be starters in the majors and not playing at AAA. As for the comment on Thome, I agreed that Thome has saved the Sox this year, but Rowand did add something to the Sox that they lack this year. It's not an either/or discussion. If the Sox could get Rowand back, they would run away with the division this year. could rowand pitch when he was with the sox? did he pitch? because that's what they are missing, not something metaphysical.

if i traded howry or dempster, i would at least make an attempt to bring wood back as a bullpen arm.

You just made some people very unhappy--angry, even. It's gonna get ugly, but stay strong. You have supporters. plenty of "stat geeks" (whatever that means) watch a ton of baseball-- probably much more than you do. i'll bring up the old "Bull Durham" logic-- the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter is 1 hit per week. a person is either crazy or lying if they say that simply watching games is the answer to finding the difference between the 2. this is just the tip of the iceberg, and it's really an illustration of a larger point. the game of baseball is largely hidden in stats, as the sample size of baseball is perfect for stat analysis. instead of relying on gut instinct, or watching one player have a good week and then deciding that he's a good player based on that, "stat geeks" (whatever that means) tend to look for real production numbers over an extended period of time. I'll jump into this and ask a question. I certainly think that baseball more than any other sport can be accurately predicted by statistics. I think however that stats certainly only tell part of the story. My question is-do people who value stats a great deal, is there anything in baseball that cannot be measured well by stats that is still important? Or are all of these things that stats cannot measure just small bonuses or detriments? stats can measure how often a player hits line drives and gets on base. i think if you erased all other stats, that these would be sufficient to build a team around, regardless of situation. sure, there are situational factors that can sometimes be measured and sometimes can't. but, you can also assume that all of the unmeasurable situations are generally equal over the course of a 162 game-season--and thusly are static for all teams.

Just a side note: The A's are last in the AL in OBP. Kinda interesting. i think their IsoD is pretty high, though.

You just made some people very unhappy--angry, even. It's gonna get ugly, but stay strong. You have supporters. plenty of "stat geeks" (whatever that means) watch a ton of baseball-- probably much more than you do. i'll bring up the old "Bull Durham" logic-- the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter is 1 hit per week. a person is either crazy or lying if they say that simply watching games is the answer to finding the difference between the 2. this is just the tip of the iceberg, and it's really an illustration of a larger point. the game of baseball is largely hidden in stats, as the sample size of baseball is perfect for stat analysis. instead of relying on gut instinct, or watching one player have a good week and then deciding that he's a good player based on that, "stat geeks" (whatever that means) tend to look for real production numbers over an extended period of time.

between reynolds, kruk, and phillips, reynolds was the only guy to even mention obp without any sense of sarcasm implied. kruk is just an a-hole to everyone, which is why he has no friends around the league--well, pretty much that hole 93 philly team is either despised, has disappeared from baseball altogether, or has had a psychotic break. reynolds was the only tolerable analyst, even though his opinions and insights were only slightly less antiquated than kruk's or phillips's.

pierre is one of the most overrated players in the league and it's all because of his speed. brady clark's OBP is around .070 points higher, whatever speed pierre has, his speed ain't THAT impressive as to ignore clark's ability to get on base. i'll take clark over pierre any day of the week. as for maddux, we have enough young pitchers to get the job done IF we sign a signifiacnt free agent pitcher. i'll go with marmol and hill and stick with them all year barring any kind of injury. ramirez would be stupid to opt out his deal. but we'd have enough pitching without marshall, who is not very good but shows an ability to get ground ball on occasion. the trade is good because it is for ryan freel. with two players like clark and freel at the top of the lineup, we'd score plenty of runs. guzman is expendable, like marshall, if a top of the rotation starter is signed in the offseason. i don't know why you'd take maddux, if prior is healthy, he'll be good. if he's not, we can get just about anyone to put up the numbers that maddux would put up--heck, even rusch could do THAT. maddux's career with the cubs as a pitcher is most likely over. neifi is a good defensive replacement, and can give any infielder the day off. good guy to have on the bench. theriot fontenot pagan branyan perez ??????

Well said! It is fun discussing some of these rumors, but I've seen pages and pages criticizing the Cubs for thinking about Craig Wilson, Carl Crawford, Abreu, Soriano, etc. for a variety of statistical reasons. Meanwhile, back at the ballpark, the Cubs are on their way to losing 100 games. Hendry is an idiot for wanting Soriano and Kenny Williams is a genius for getting him. You've seen pages and pages of criticizing the Cubs for thinking about Craig Wilson or Abreu? I sure as hell haven't. I'm not even sure there are pages criticizing them for thinking about Soriano. It's not the type of move I'd like to see them make, but I'm not adamently opposed to it either. I've seen Crawford brought up on occasion, usually in the positive. people criticized possibly acquiring soriano before he changed his hitting strategy, began making pitchers throw him good pitches and became non-overrated for the first time in his career.

He's going to get at least 10m a year come next year. It's what the current market demands. I mean is Furcal worth 13m a year? Is AJ Burnett worth 5\60 million? No and no. Just b/c people are stupid enough to pay average players crazy money doesn't mean you jump into the stupid pool. He may get $10m from someone next year, in fact I'd be surprised if he didn't, but he'll be 31 next year and he has a career .835 OPS. For a corner OF, that's above average, but not $10m worth. Put it this way - the team that pays him $10m next year is not going to get a good return on their investment (disclaimer - if he moves back to 2B that helps, but I still think $10m is too much - Walker had a better OPS each of the last 2 seasons). OPS or no OPS, Walker isn't even in the same universe as Soriano (except when it comes to defense). 2004 .820 2005 .829 2004 .808 2005 .821 Who is who? Obviously Soriano is having a far, far superior year in 2006, but the last 2 years I would much rather have had Walker at second base. OPS doesn't mean anything, the true measure of a player is how many times he's mentioned on espn.

dusty needs to be chewing out cedeno for thinking every pitch he sees is a good one to hit, because cedeno is a terrible hitter.

I think it is illustrative that, with all the rich baseball discussion going on between you and I, you chose this to comment on. you escalated the rhetoric with your "it's called IsoD" jab. you further escalated it with your rant on the word "dabbled." review the thread and see who gets pissy with who first. if my arguments aren't valid, counter them with better arguments, instead of resorting to sarcasm and condescention. there's just too much hypocrisy in this post.

And if he was, he would be hitting like Corey Patterson did for us. Yep, he would, after Clines, Sarge and Dusty beat the plate discipline and overall great hitting habits he currently possesses out of him. i think that was his point, but i could be wrong. anyhow, i'm sick of hearing about quentin--the fact that the cubs have never had a player comparable to him turns my stomach. quentin is and will be an amazing player in the big leagues--but the cubs will never possess him.

you already suggested a better option in this very thread in Brady Clark. I still like the suggestion I gave in this very thread, DeJesus. the A's were a way of illustrating a point. can anyone say anything contrary to 'the A's are great' without getting into a pissing match around here? see the Arod thread for my thoughts on Beane. I'm not doing it again. the week before the all-star game he sat a couple times. you are probably right, not enough to consider it dabbling into a platoon. not sure what your opinion of that word adds to the conversation. fact remains that Hendry has tried a platoon at a corner outfielder before, so it's not without precedent. did you even read other people's suggested moves? I've already suggested Cruz Jr. who is easily obtainable and gives the team alot of flexability being a switch hitter and outstanding outfielder. I'm sure there are plenty others. plus, the moves and team I suggested advocates over paying Wilson to be a part time starter/first guy off the bench / possible starter in 2008 role, so that gives you two right handed options. sorry I present some valid arguments contrary to your opinioin. it really doesn't call for you getting so pissy with me. i don't see how i've gotten any more "pissy" than you have with me or any other poster in the threads you post in. it seems to me that your posts are nothing but "pissy". and declaring your own arguments valid or my arguments invalid does not make them so.

i'd do brady clark straight up for dempster.

a walk is not better than a two-pitch groundout!

let's not get so excited about quentin, he's not playing for us.

The only answer to the Cubs problems is more impact bats. They can deal with mediocrity in the middle infielf if they have 6 other solid bats, including some stud in the OF. there's too many players that can offer solid production at second, though, it's not like they're hard to find. there's one on the roster right now.

i wouldn't do that if i were the cards. too much.

Who? How about Cliff Floyd? I wasn't going mention anybody imparticular, but I decided to. At this point in Abreu's career he is SIMPLY not worth $15 mill dollar for a couple of yrs, no matter how good his OBP is. If the Cubs would do their homework (which I seriously doubt :roll: ) they could find more cost-effeficent (sp?) players with similar offensive skillset as Abreu. Floyd isn't in Abreu's class. I don't particularly want Floyd unless its a sweatheart, incentive ladden deal. but in 2007, Abreu won't be in Abreu's class either, and the margin of difference between he and Floyd certainly would not be worth the money. and yet abreu's OBP is the highest it's been since 99, and his OPS is up from last season. he's 32! he's got plenty of time left in the majors.