vance_the_cubs_fan

But it's not a "productive" out. It's more productive than maybe a strike-out or a double play and more productive than an out that doesn't advance the runner, but it doesn't improve the team's scoring chances one bit. Read this quote: Now, I'm sure you're eager to dismiss that quote as coming from a stat geek who isn't qualified to comment and hasn't watched or played the game. If so, you'd be wrong. That is from a pitcher who played in the major leagues for 14 years. I'm guessing you don't quite have that on your resume' just yet. Giving up the out to advance a runner from first to second does nothing to improve the team's chances to score a run. The chances of scoring or the same then as when he stepped to the plate. What he has done has kept the chances from decreasing which, I guess is better than nothing, but surely not "productive." You've twisted so many facts in this thread, it's comical. When your ideas have been throughly refuted, you've turned to the assinine watch some games or I play the game, like none of us have. You said that Barrett and Molina were equals offensively which isn't true. They are closer to equals defensively than they are offensively. You've mischaracterized Vernon Wells, carefully selecting years or generalizations which are closer to fiction than truth. My guess is you don't like VORP or any other stat like that because you don't want to or lack the ability to comprehend it.

No way, man! He's second in the AL in fielding percentage! :lol:

No they are not. Let me guess, you're going to be using VORP and that other garbage to judge Molina? Stats dont tell you everything. Playing and watching are 2 different things. I hate it when people just use some meaningless stats like VORP to judge a player. Average, Hr, RBI's, OBP, and fielding% are a good way to judge a player in my book. So, is Ramirez the best fielding thirdbaseman in the NL? And when using BA/OBP/SLG, Barrett is offensively superior to Molina and Wells. So, now you're down to Fielding % which is hardly a good way to measure catcher's defensive value.

You're right. I forgot to check his contract status... it's a 7.5 million dollar option that'll be declined. He'll probably make about 5. Either way, it's not an insignificant amount. In 2002 and 2003 Bengie may have deserved a gold glove. I've got him coming in at 12 runs over average each year. 2004 he comes in at three below. Yeah, that looks like it might be a statistical anomaly... a sample size issue or something. He had done well in the prior seasons. 2005 he comes in at four below. It certainly decreases the odds that both years are anomalous. 2006 as we've established puts him at eight below average. The pattern has been irrefutably established. He is not longer an above average defensive catcher... and he's getting worse at an alarming rate. And those offensive numbers you posted are thoroughly unimpressive. The only reason he's amassed 15 HR and 46 RBI is that he's been trotted out there for 384 at bats. If Henry Blanco had the same number of at bats this year, he'd have 12 HR and 62 RBI. Playing time isn't the same thing as production... and his .315 OBP is not acceptible production... at least not on an offensive squad as weak as the Cubs already are. Maybe the Red Sox could hide a guy like him in the lineup... but the Cubs can't afford the downgrade. The only argument you've made that I can't refute with numbers is his ability to call a game. And you've got nothing to back up that claim either. 162 game average for Bengie Molina: .273 Average 15HR 72RBI .320OBP. 162 game average for Barrett: .263 Average 14HR 64RBI .320OBP Very similiar production. One thing Bengie has an advantage over Barrett is his ability to call a game behind the plate. Bengie has the reputation around the league for being one of the best game callers behind the plate. I like a backstop of Molina and Blanco for the 07 Cubs. Hendry better be looking to add more pitching depth to this club next year. You win with pitching and defense. If the Cubs were to get Bengie and Wells, they would have one the best up the middle defenses in the league. Using 162 game averages is not always the best way to look at current player value. By that logic, Sammy Sosa would be a great acquisition for RF. Just look at his career 162 game average.

The word that I've heard is that Toronto is going to up their payroll in 2007. $100 million is the current rumour. And don't get me wrong, I love Wells... but he's not worth Barrett. Especially considering the fact we could probably get him for Izturis, Pie, and a live arm. Why give up one of the top players at his position for Wells when you can divest yourself of Izturis for the mere cost of an exceptionally talented, but far from sure thing prospect? The Cubs would be improving their team by adding Wells, then signing Bengie. Bengie wont post a high OBP, but he will hit around .275 and drive in 60 runs a year. His ability to call a game behind the plate, and his ability to play excellent defense is why I want him on the Cubs next year. So, your real motivation for wanting to trade Barrett is to open a spot for Molina. While getting Wells would be nice, there are players that could be acquired who are likely equal to or better than Wells that wouldn't cost giving up one of the few bright spots on the team. Barrett > Molina, so if I can improve another position like CF without given up Barrett, that is the better option. Vernon will put up better numbers than Barrett year after year. Then you would be adding Bengie, who will put up similiar numbers Barrett has every year. I'll first challenge your statement that Molina will put up similar numbers to Barrett. Barrett 2004: 287/337/489 Molina 2004: 276/313/404 Edge: Barrett Barrett 2005: 276/345/479 Molina 2005: 295/336/446 Edge: Barrett Barrett 2006: 307/368/517 Molina 2006: 281/315/445 Edge: Barrett Barrett has been better each of the past three years and this year by a significant margin. Considering Molina is 32 and Barrett is 29, it's logical to assume Barrett's performance over the last three years is more sustainable than Molina. And to claim Wells is better than Barrett, at least offensively, that's just not true. In 2006, Wells is hitting 289/362/558. That's pretty comparable to Barrett's 307/368/517. Wells is slugging a bit higher, but that's the only place he has any advantage. In 2004-2005, Barrett was clearly the better hitter as in 2005, Barrett's line of 276/345/479 easily bests Wells's line of 269/320/463 and in 2004 Barrett's line of 287/337/489 is better than Wells's line of 272/337/472. Wells and Barrett are comparable players offensively. Simply swapping one for the other doesn't help unless your catcher is going to be offensive as well. I think it would be easier to find a CF to top Molina's output therefore Barrett + ?CF > Wells + Molina. In fact, I'd dare to say Barrett + Pie would be a equal offensive output to Wells + Molina at a fraction of the cost.

The word that I've heard is that Toronto is going to up their payroll in 2007. $100 million is the current rumour. And don't get me wrong, I love Wells... but he's not worth Barrett. Especially considering the fact we could probably get him for Izturis, Pie, and a live arm. Why give up one of the top players at his position for Wells when you can divest yourself of Izturis for the mere cost of an exceptionally talented, but far from sure thing prospect? The Cubs would be improving their team by adding Wells, then signing Bengie. Bengie wont post a high OBP, but he will hit around .275 and drive in 60 runs a year. His ability to call a game behind the plate, and his ability to play excellent defense is why I want him on the Cubs next year. So, your real motivation for wanting to trade Barrett is to open a spot for Molina. While getting Wells would be nice, there are players that could be acquired who are likely equal to or better than Wells that wouldn't cost giving up one of the few bright spots on the team. Barrett > Molina, so if I can improve another position like CF without given up Barrett, that is the better option.

Of course, who is going to pay Soriano that kind of money? There's not a lot of teams willing to fork over that amount to anyone. My guess is that he will sign for less simply because he is not a fifteen million dollar player. There are still questions about his defense which will drive his price down. The Yankees could afford him but they have a full OF for next season and seem willing to do with Cano at second. The Angels are the most likely suitor, and maybe they will offer him that much. The Red Sox have Manny in left and aren't likely to pay Soriano that kind of money considering his skills don't really match what they are looking for. The Mets may meet that price, but if they do, would that take them out of the running for Zito? Personally, I think the best Soriano will do is 5/62. The Cubs could afford to meet that price if they go young within the rotation. I'm not sure I want Soriano, but if he were plugged in at second and produced close to what he has this year, his additon alone could help the lack of power in the offense.

I think Giles would be much cheaper to acquire than Young. If the Braves trade Giles, they would have to replace an offensive minded second baseman. Those are easier to find than the Rangers having to replace Young's offense at short. I can see Texas attempting to make some overhauls this offseason. They have been in contention at mid year the last couple of years, only to fall out of it as the season wore on. With Lee a FA and Teixeira approaching free agency, they may decide it's time to retool things differently. I'd look into either Giles or Young if they were to become available. Texas will likely want some pitching and may even demand Pie as part of any package for Young. I'm not sure if we'd be willing to pay that much to get him.

I do think it is time for MacPhail to go. But, I've heard his name mentioned as a successor to Selig when he retires, so my guess is that he will be retained until that move occurs.

I'm going to look over mine again. I don't think that record is right. Be careful in adding the spreads to the final scores to make sure. Aftet tonight's games, I'll look over my predictions to double check.

One 40 yd reception by Gates and I'll get a win despite a dismal week from my entire team.

I'm in favor of spending for Soriano if we'll play him at second. Not so much for left.

I think there are a few teams that should be ranked ahead of Texas as well. I don't think they fell far enough.

ND didn't beat any good teams last year and we don't know how good Penn State and Michigan will end up being this year. You can't give a team credit for winning a game early in the season against a highly ranked team if that team ends up having an average year that year. It's just like with Pittsburgh and Michigan last year. Those games looked like big victories and many people continued to mention that Notre Dame beat Michigan when they were ranked #3 in the nation and they beat a ranked Pittsburgh team. Neither of those teams ended up being very good last year so why should ND get credit for beating a good team when said team ends up being no more than an average team. If Penn State finishes the year 5-6, it's obvious that ND's victory over them wasn't actually that impressive. I would argue that Notre Dame's victory over PSU is still pretty impressive even if they finish 5-6, just not as impressive. It doesn't get much more one-sided than 41-3. So, how impressive is Auburn's win over Miss St or LSU's over Arizona? We don't know. What if Arizona finishes 4-7 and Penn State finishes 5-6? Which team's victory was more impressive? That's why it's stupid to start clamoring about strenght of schedule after two [expletive] games! Well the Pac-10 sucks at football so LSU's was definitely the least of the 3. :) Ok, but the SEC is great at football, so I guess an SEC win over a marginaly good SEC team should count for more right?

ND didn't beat any good teams last year and we don't know how good Penn State and Michigan will end up being this year. You can't give a team credit for winning a game early in the season against a highly ranked team if that team ends up having an average year that year. It's just like with Pittsburgh and Michigan last year. Those games looked like big victories and many people continued to mention that Notre Dame beat Michigan when they were ranked #3 in the nation and they beat a ranked Pittsburgh team. Neither of those teams ended up being very good last year so why should ND get credit for beating a good team when said team ends up being no more than an average team. If Penn State finishes the year 5-6, it's obvious that ND's victory over them wasn't actually that impressive. I would argue that Notre Dame's victory over PSU is still pretty impressive even if they finish 5-6, just not as impressive. It doesn't get much more one-sided than 41-3. So, how impressive is Auburn's win over Miss St or LSU's over Arizona? We don't know. What if Arizona finishes 4-7 and Penn State finishes 5-6? Which team's victory was more impressive? That's why it's stupid to start clamoring about strenght of schedule after two [expletive] games!

I definitely agree. He is a good player but if you want to be cost conscious couldn't you get a guy like Ray Durham/Julio Lugo/Mark Loretta for a lot cheaper and use the other money/prospects to work on the rotation. I don't see it being that big of a drop off Durham etc to Young. Whether or not it's a big drop off depends on Durham's production. He's had quite the resurgence this year, but whether or not he can maintain it next year is ify at best. If both Young and Marcus Giles are available, I'd prefer to have Giles to Young.

Considering ND has played the hardest schedule in the country - BY FAR - out of any top 25 team, being sarcastic about their schedule is going to fall on deaf ears. Find some other way to express your ND hatred, please. It's two games into the season. It's a little early to determine strength of schedule. We really don't know the level of the teams played other than opinions and last year's performance.

I think LSU-Auburn is the premiere game this week with ND vs Michigan a close second. Here's hoping LSU can pull off the tough road win and keep the national title hopes alive. Geaux Tigers!

Young is a good player, but I'm not sure he'd be worth the cost to get him.

Outside of the first quarter, it was a horrendous performance by the Cowboys offense. Bledsoe was horrible. Two scores for the Jags off of turnovers by Bledsoe. Ugh!

According to ESPN, Houshmanzadeh is out for today's game.

Find a Hooters. Most of those have the Sunday ticket and you should be able to watch the Bears.

new favorite post of all time I'm glad you said it cause there's no way I coulda let that slide. Depending on how one interpreted that statement, it could either mean one team is doing bad or else it's the best in stadium promotion ever invented. Heh, explain the 15-0 part. :P Giving the score along with explaining the promotion... just as saying free beer at the half, score 14-0.

new favorite post of all time I'm glad you said it cause there's no way I coulda let that slide. Depending on how one interpreted that statement, it could either mean one team is doing bad or else it's the best in stadium promotion ever invented.

First start in the big leagues in over a year. I would take a healthy Wade Miller over a guy like Angel Guzman. I think most people would take a healthy Wade Miller over most pitchers. Problem is that he'll probably never be healthy. You would think. But, some people on this site actually would take Brady Clark over Vernon Wells. Yeah, I know. And some people on this site would rather have Benji Molina than Barrett. That's ludicrous!