vance_the_cubs_fan

Does this now make a Lidge a gutless, choking dog?

I'd like to have Wilkerson, but I'm not sure the Nats trade him. I think Guillen is more likely. And if Dusty's strength is handling malcontents, let's see what he can do with Guillen and Bradley. Both players have immense talent. We tried the chemistry route this year, and it didn't work too well. Let's try having some talented malcontents and see where that goes. Also, Guillen could be replaced with Floyd if Floyd is easier to acquire. I don't think it makes that much difference. If we could get Wilkerson instead of Guillen, then instead of Bradley we might go for Floyd as well, or maybe Ibanez.

If Giles re-signs with the Padres, I'm going to look at making the following moves. 1. Go hard after Furcal. He's the next available FA and would give us a lead-off hitter and improved defense at SS. 2. Pick up Walker's option. With Furcal at SS, we'll have better defense and Walker will be an ideal number two hitter behind Furcal. 3. Strike a deal with the Dodgers for Lowe and Milton Bradley. 4. Attempt to trade for Jose Guillen. 5. Sign Octavio Dotel as set-up. My line-up looks something like this: SS Furcal 2b Walker 1b Lee 3b Ramirez CF Bradley RF Guillen LF Murton C Barrett SP Zambrano SP Prior SP Wood SP Maddux SP Lowe Bullpen: CL Dempster Set-up: Dotel Ohman Wuertz Hill Novoa Bench: Hairston Grieve Greenberg Cedeno Blanco Branyan/Sweeney if possible or Fontenot Dempster CL

Why trade for Pierre when you can sign Lofton and not give up the players? If I keep Nomar, it's to put him at SS and keep Walker. I'm not saying that's the best course of action, but at the price it might be best. Also, if I sign Furcal, I have no need to trade for Pierre as Furcal would fill the lead-off spot.

If Giles is off the market, Mench has to be a possibility along with Huff, Floyd, and others. While he's not someone that I get terribly excited about, he's better than some options. My feelings on Mench depend a lot on who Texas would want in return and if there are better players we could acquire.

I still haven't seen one person offer a valid reason why the Cubs should trade Patterson and Hill for Pierre as long as Lofton is still available. The upgrade to Pierre from Lofton is not significant enough to warrant sending Hill to the Marlins. If Lofton signs elsewhere, then this is an idea that I think would warrant consideration. As it is, it is foolish to trade high ceiling players for a player whose equal you could get via free agency at a lower salary than the person you are trading for.

You have a feeling....yet no facts on which to base that feeling. I have a feeling that Pierre is in regression and what we saw of him in 2005 will be what to expect in 2006 if not worse. I can't back it up, but I think you should trust my feeling.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". 100 years of baseball is the proof. Hairston is not his equal even when throwing out reality and playing fantasy baseball. Pierre's ability to steal bases far surpasses Hairston. Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years. You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together? Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention. Just my groundbreaking work on Furcal and Giles. :) As I've said a few times, I'll go w/ the cw. Pitchers, hitters and managers may know a little something. So, you've proven that one speedy lead-off hitter has helped one number two hitter. How do you know that isn't the anomaly? BTW, do you know how many times conventional wisdom has been proven wrong by the field of research? Pitchers, hitters, and managers may know something. That is true. But it is just as likely that they may believe something that is false simply because they have heard it so many times. That's where research comes in.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". 100 years of baseball is the proof. Hairston is not his equal even when throwing out reality and playing fantasy baseball. Pierre's ability to steal bases far surpasses Hairston. Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years. You'd have to factor in the 3, 4 and possibly 5 hitter as well. Perhaps the data's not there cause Bill James couldn't produce anything that fits his premise?? Maybe Fred can put something together? Before knocking James, at least he's done some research. Do you have any data to support your contention.

Wow, thanks for being the final decision maker. :lol: I guess now we can stop arguing. :wink: Does Kenny Lofton want to come back to the Cubs? Seems to be a pretty big assumption on your part. Not any more than assuming that this is an actual trade proposal between the two teams. Or any bigger of an assumption that speedy lead-off hitters help the number two hitter.

3/30 would be a bargain for Giles and about 6 million less than what I thought it would take for the Padres to keep him. That being said, if he truly desires to stay in S.D., it's still a fair share of money. I guess we'll have to see how this plays out.

I think 4/50 is a good ballpark figure.

And even with all the arguments that have been made, it still boils down to that this would be a horrible trade. Kenny Lofton (even old decrepit as he is) would be a better option than Pierre. Im not saying that Lofton is the best option, but to trade away players to get a player that will perform equal or worse than one you can sign as a FA for less money is a bad idea.

You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". 100 years of baseball is the proof. Hairston is not his equal even when throwing out reality and playing fantasy baseball. Pierre's ability to steal bases far surpasses Hairston. Where? Do you have the data that shows a speedy hitter on base helps the number two hitter? I'd like to see that data for the last 100 years.

OK, so I should have specified "under the current financial situation." And, under the current financial situation, I think it's clear that a few cities cannot support their teams. That's why baseball needs to modify the current system. It would be in the best interests for everyone not named the Yankees. If baseball expands into more locales, then there will be more baseball fans. It's much easier to be a fan when you can travel to a game every once in awhile. I think baseball needs to find a way to share more local revenue while insuring that the revenue shared is spent on on-the-field talent. When that does, I think there are a number of markets which could support a team and it would improve the health of a number of existing teams.

The problem isn't that cities can't support teams. They can. What is clear is that some cities and teams can bring in much more revenue than others. If a better system of revenue sharing were in place, you'd have a lot less trouble expanding baseball into the smaller markets.

But Pierre is a FA after 2006, so he's not a long term solution either. We would still have to compete for Pierre's services in 2007. The best course if for the Cubs to ignore Pierre as long as Lofton is available. Sign Lofton to a one-year deal and let him platoon with Hairston. Then if you want Pie in right, but I don't see why, sign Pierre as a FA. In this case you still have Hill to use or to trade for something you can't get in FA.

Why didn't you list their stats for 2001? Also, Player A gets hurt alot unlike Player B. There's a pretty signifcant difference between the two. I want a little more for Patterson and Hill than just Pierre though. Where's the significant difference? That Hairston is injury prone? The point is that Pierre isn't good, no one's calling for Hairston as the leadoff man we've been searching for, but for some reason people are enamored with Pierre. And I didn't list 2001 for the purposes of showing that they have been similar. The same way I didn't use their numbers from 2000, that favor Hairston in a similar sample size. But if you would like to post them and use the numbers from 5 years ago to prove that Pierre is significantly better than Hairston be my guest. Someone being injured consistently versus someone who isn't is pretty significant. Player A has 8 years a career .334 obp, 102 stolen bases played 644 games Player B has 6 years a career .355 obp 267 stolen bases played 845 games So, what's the difference between Lofton and Pierre? Sign Lofton and keep Hill would be the wisest course of action.

Not to sound like a troll but, the Cubs should only do that deal if they believe they are one player away from seriously contending for the world series. Does someone have the numbers that compare what the team OBP would have been this year if you replaced Burnitz with Giles? I think just adding Giles to the team could make that much difference. That's why I pay him. Also, not to start an argument, but in your sig...no way 3/39 gets Giles off the Left Coast.

First, I doubt the validity of this rumor. It could be true, but it has a dubious source. Secondly, there's no way I do this deal. Patterson for Pierre? ok. Maybe even Patterson and Wellemeyer or Leicester. Not with Hill included. Mo way. Further more, compare these two players: Pierre 2005: 276/326/354 57 SB/ 17 CS 2002-2004: 303/354/378 167 SB/ 61 CS Lofton 2005: 335/392/420 22 SB/ 3 CS 2002-2004: 303/362/428 59 SB/ 15 CS Pierre is younger, but Lofton is a FA and will command a lower salary and not have the player cost involved. If everything were even, I'd take Pierre over Lofton, but the two are too similar to trade a prospect of Hill's caliber for Pierre when you can just sign Lofton. If the Cubs pursue Lofton and miss out and then can't find a CF anywhere else, then I'd pursue Pierre.

I don't think we have the players to get Abreu. I'd love to have him, but I think they're going to want a bit more than Jerome Williams and minor leaguers.

I'm thinking the Dodger job will go to Hershiser. He's young and has the pedigree. If Depodesta leaves, I guess that would make it more likely that Dusty is gone. I honestly don't think there's much to this rumor, but if Dusty is gone...Fredi Gonzalez please!

Here's mine: 1b Mark Teixeira 2b Rickie Weeks 3b Hank Blaylock SS Jose Reyes C Joe Mauer LF Miguel Cabrera CF Willy Taveras RF Jeff Froancoer SP Dontrelle Willis RP Hutson Street CL Frankie Rodriguez

At that cost and his age I would have to say no thanks. I would much rather they throw a lot of minor league talent at someone like the Reds for Dunn or Phillies for Abreu and then sign that player to a long term deal. Nothing against Giles, but it just seems like he is going to be overvalued due to the free agent class he is in. In an isolated sense, I will agree that 5/50 is overpaying. On the other hand, there's no guarantee that Dunn or Abereu are even on the market or that the Cubs have the young players to get a deal done. I personally don't think the Cubs have the players to match up with the Reds, even if they were inclined to trade Dunn. I'm not even sure the Phillies want to trade Abereu. Based on all that, we can't afford to go into 2006 with an outfield of Murton, Preston Wilson, and Jaque Jones. We just have to bite the bullet and pay for Giles.

My case for Davey Johnson- In 14 seasons as a manager: * 564 Career Winning Percentage as a manager. * Only 3 seasons below .500 *4 seasons with a 600 WP or higher. * 6 seasons with more than 90 wins. However he gets the job done, he does. My case for Dierker- In 5 seasons as manager of the Astros: * 553 Winning Percentage * Only one season below .500 * 3 seasons above 90 wins * One season with a 630 WP. He's good with the pitchers and has demonstrated good knowledge of the game. The only knock against him was his record in the post season, which personally, I don't hold against him. What is there not to like about Johnson or Dierker? I put Gonzalez ahead of these two because he's younger and hopefully will bring with him the Braves philosphy as he's been an understudy of Cox for the last few years. Any of the three would make a great manager in Chicago, however.