Warren Brusstar

Better than Garland? Silly.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say an average outfielder in his early 30s and a few not-so-great pitching prospects are not going to fetch a 25 year old guy who is at least a #2, and maybe a #1 if he puts it all together like he did in 2004. Oh, I doubt they take that deal, but it's a starting point. The bolded looked to be a large if, at times, last season. If he's rumored to be available- why not at least make the call? Jones, Veal, Patterson/Pie and a lower-level pitching prospect probably would be enough. Is it worth that? Maybe. He's darn good. Prior and Jones would, and I would do that in a heartbeat. Z, Peavy, Lilly, Miller, Hill... yeah, I could live with that. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that would get it done.

Maybe a #1? I know he had a down year in 2006, but the two seasons prior to that - at ages 23 and 24 - he posted 2.27 and 2.88 ERAs. There's no maybe about it. He's a legit ace.

So what of the public reports that Hendry is going after him? Really? And I thought the Church threads were as silly as the Bonds threads or the Dunn threads.

Ryan Church (2006) = Jason Michaels (2005) The player pegged by sabr-conscious NSBBers as the ideal CF option, but whom Hendry just isn't going to pursue in a million years.

Is Hendry going to acquire every former Dunedin High School or Notre Dame player available?

Looks to me like the Cubs are envisioning: 1 Soriano, CF 2 DeRosa, 2B 3 Lee, 1B 4 Ramirez, 3B 5 Jones, RF 6 Barrett, C 7 Murton, LF 8 Dr. Glove, SS

Coulda saved the $4 M and added a bit more for a guy like Durham or Loretta. You don't think the difference is going to so to Soriano or pitchers? It might, but I think that in the end, the Cubs won't be able to afford Soriano. Especially if they keep throwing multi-year multi-million dollar contracts at mediocre utility men that are coming off career years at age 31. Once again, it appears that Hendry was bidding against himself. Can you imagine another team paying $12 million? Or even $8 million? As has been discussed too many times here - Jim Hendry is a terrible general manager. But the defining flaw of his tenure of his utter ability to understand replacement value and his attendant insistence upon significantly overpaying for mediocrity. Time and time and time again, Hendry has given multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts to players that aren't much better than replacement level. As an example, can anyone actually say with an ounce of confidence that Mark DeRosa will perform better in 2007 than Ryan Theriot would have? I can't. Yet, we're paying an excess $3.5 million per year to have DeRosa. It's particularly frustrating when the Cubs then claim they can't afford Carlos Beltran or J.D. Drew or [insert actual difference-maker here].

What is Dusty is actually an advocate of plate discipline but was forced to say bad things about walks for fear that Hendry would fire him? :lol:

All of the above could be true but it still does not explain taking on another all-glove-no-bat middle infielder for anohter year and a half. I'd rather they not traded Maddux or gotten a couple of AA level roster fillers. What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world The good would be that the Cubs aren't straddled with Izturis undeserved 4 million for next season. Exactly. Even if we accept as true that the Dodgers were unwilling to give up a prospect, the right move would have been to look elsewhere, not bend over and take a bad contract from the Dodgers. Let's put it this way: I would like that trade better if they had gotten a bucket of balls instead of a $4.5 million commitment to a bad player.

What I want to know is why Pierre is constantly lauded by Chicago baseball writers for performing at career norms from June - September, while ARam is hammered by those same writers for doing likewise. In any event, to the extent Soriano is the Cubs No. 1 target, it's not a terrible idea because he gives them so much positional flexibility. They can plug him into CF into Pie is ready, with Murton (LF) and Theriot (2B) essentially competing to see who is displaced by Soriano when Pie is ready. Then, you move Soriano to LF or 2B.

I think what the A's advances proves is just what everyone has said all along. The playoffs are still a crap shoot. Getting there is the goal. Beane critics have said his methods won't win in the playoffs. They were wrong. His methods have just as good a chance to win as any other methods in the playoffs. This year just verifies that. It validates that in this crapshoot, his methods have validity. It's not proving the playoffs aren't a crapshoot, but in essence is an answer to the critics who never believed the playoffs were a crapshoot in the first place. Not exactly. As Baseball Between the Numbers Discovered, power pitchers, defensive efficiency, and a great closer win in the playoffs. It's not entirely a crap shoot.

Isn't there a toolsy athlete from Dunedin High School available? He'll fit right in.

A few responses: Wrong. The problem with this statement is that peripheral ERA similarly fails to remove the effect of either luck or exceptional defense. A pitcher's PERA is based in part on his EqH9, which is largely affected by his defense. Indeed, a pitcher with a great defense will post a lower EqH9 than the same pitcher with a bad defense. So, peripheral ERA doesn't eliminate the effect of defense. Similarly, the luck component that is involved in posting a low BABIP is similarly reflected by PERA, becasue EqH9 does not normalize a pitcher's BABIP. And, while the difference between ERA and peripheral ERA does adequately reflect whether a pitcher has pitched better with men in scoring position (and thus outpitching his PERA), I posit that this type of "luck" should not be eliminated from evaluating the success of a pitcher. While there can be no reasonable dispute that pitching well with men in scoring position is not a repeatable skill (at least not better than a pitcher's standard performance line), there should also be no reasonable dispute that a pitcher that has fortuitously pitched well with men in scoring position in a particular year has been very, very valuable. In other words, while it's absurd to make personnel decisions based upon a non-repeatable skill (pitching well with men in scoring position), it's similarly absurd to suggest that we should simply ignore this when considering a pitcher's relative success in a particular season. These are not even remotely analagous for all of the reasons stated above. Perhaps I should have been more clear. As a general rule, the pitcher that saves more runs over replacement value (with park factors accounted for) is the more valuable pitcher. But, at its extreme, as I attempted to illustrate in my third premise, two or three very bad outings may distort a pitcher's overall ERA and inaccurately reflect his value. For example, Jason Marquis has had two starts this year in which he allowed more than 10 earned runs (one game with 13 ER, IIRC). But after run #7, for example, did Marquis really detrimentally affect his team's chances of winning the game? The Cardinals win expectancy when gave up run #11 did not change very much from when he gave up run #10. Yet, for purposes of his ERA, those extra ten runs are the equivalent of allowing 4 runs instead of 3 over the course of 10 starts. And there can be no reasonable dispute that those are not the same. I'm not contending that wins are something that should be credited very much when evaluating candidates, because the amount of runs that his team scores is 50% of the equation. Yet, wins do provide an exceptionally crude proxy for illustrating a pitcher's consistency. Are other numbers better? Absolutely. As to Clemens/Carpenter/Willis, discounting park effects, here's a rather crude estimate of how I'd value each. If we assume that a replacement level pither could post a 5.00 ERA (that's probably a good rough estimate), than here's how many runs each of the three saved per 9 innings pitched: Carpenter: 5 - 2.83 (Carp's ERA) = 2.17 per 9 Clemens: 5 - 1.87 (Clemens' ERA) = 3.13 per 9 Willis: 5 - 2.63 (Willis' ERA) = 2.37 per 9 Now, turning those numbers into aggregate runs saved we have to multiply times the number of innings that each pitcher actually pitched (and divided by nine to turn ERA into earned runs per inning): Carpernter: 2.17 * 241.66 / 9 = 58.26 runs saved Clemens: 3.13 * 211.33 / 9 = 73.50 runs saved Willis: 2.37 * 236.3 / 9 = 62.23 runs saved. So, as a crude start, I would rank them: 1. Clemens 2. Willis 3. Carpenter

Why should WHIP or component ERA or PRC factor into Cy Young balloting at all? Indeed, in my view, those numbers should be less important than wins (which itself is a very poor criterion). OK, hear me out - this is not an anti-stathead argument. Indeed, I'm as big a stat-nerd as there is on this board. But, unlike hitters, there is no reason for purposes of Cy Young voting to look beyond actual results. First premise: The Cy Young award should be given to the pitcher that most helps his team win games. Second premise: That pitcher is, generally, the one that saves his team the most amount of runs over a replacement level pitcher. In other words, a pitcher that pitches 250 innings at 2.80 ERA is more valuable than a pitcher that pitches 200 innings at a 2.70 ERA. The single exception to that rule relates to the third premise. Third premise: Consistency is also important. A pitcher that throws 31 shutouts, but who allows 100 runs in a single game is obviously more valuable than a pitcher that allows exactly 3 runs per nine innings. Now, initially, it's important to note that evaluating pitching contributions is significantly different than assessing the contributions of a hitter. The job of a hitter is to maximize his team's ability to score runs. However, as we all know, because a hitter is only 1/9th of his team's offense, his traditional run output numbers (runs scored and RBI) are heavily team-dependent statistics and do not fairly reflect his contribution. Accordingly, runs created, equivalent average, and a host of other numbers are necessary to understand how a hitter is contributing within a team environment. On the other hand, a pitcher is involved in every single at-bat for the opposition. Thus, while peripheral numbers have significant predictive value, they are not necessary to determine how effective a pitcher has been. For example, assume for a moment that Player A posted a 3.00 ERA, with a WHIP of 1.40 and a component ERA of 4.00, while Player B posted a 4.00 ERA, with a WHIP of 1.20 and a component ERA of 3.00. Going forward, because of his better peripheral numbers, Player B is much more likely to post a better ERA the following year. But, for purposes of Cy Young award voting, why should Player B be rewarded for having better peripheral numbers? If Player A fortuitously pitched well with runners in scoring position in 2006 (while Player B pitcher poorly), Player A was significantly more valuable to his team. The pitcher's ONLY job is not to allow runs. If Player A posts an uncharacteristically high WHIP while allowing significantly fewer runs, he is more valuable to his team. Indeed, as maligned as pitching "Wins" are by the sabr community, that statistic at least has some correlation to a pitcher's consistency. To wit - a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA that allowed 15 runs in one game was more valuable to his team than a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA that allowed no more than 5 runs in any single game. The first pitcher will also likely have more wins.

Theriot isn't much of a prospect either.

I'll take Theriot's idiotic baserunning for $100, Alex.

Given the park factors involved here, it would be pretty tough to convince me that anyone other than Webb merits serious consideration IF THE VOTING WAS TODAY. Obviously, there's still another month to play. But, if I was voting, Z and Carpenter would have some ground to make up. Thankfully, the writers are, generally, idiots, so Z still has a great chance.

Well, as a matter of semantical accuracy, isn't he right? If Neifi or Jacque Jones or Jose Macias or Moises Alou makes a boneheaded decision, it's not a mistake by a young player, so it's not really accurate to call it a "young mistake." When Theriot does something similarly stupid -- and make no mistake, that was as bad a baseball play as you can make -- it is accurate to call it a "young mistake." Now, whether it's fair for Dusty only to call out young players for their mistakes is a different issue entirely. And on that point, I agree -- I wish Dusty would treat players equally, regardless of their experience.

1. In a small sample (one game), being very lucky can make a mediocre performance look very, very good. There were a LOT of balls hit very hard but right at people today. 2. Are you disputing the notion that the Cubs are one of baseball's very worst teams?

Most cost-effective? Yes. It's no contest. Best? No. Eyre and Howry have been better.

Podsednik has a whopping 20 point advantage in OBP. Over the course of 700 plate appearances, that 14 additional times that he gets on base. At most, that's about 4-5 runs over the course of the entire season. Now, add in Pierre's superior defense and more efficient baserunning -- see Dan Schroedinger's well-reasoned BP article from 7/13/2006 that concluded that Juan Pierre is the best baserunner in the game and generates approximately 4-7 runs per year solely from his ability to advance bases on balls hit in play -- and Podsednik's OBP advantage is negated entirely.

I believe he's sincere in what he said last night and for the last year or so _ that he wants to remain a Cub. What I think will happen is that the Cubs will attempt to restructure the deal to sweeten it and keep him off the open market. Aramis and Jim Hendry have a good relationshp, and the agent, Paul Kinzer, appears to be a very reasonable guy. My gut feeling is that he stays. This makes sense to me. The Cubs will have money to spend in the offseason, and the fallout from letting him walk would be very ugly, considering that the offense is already the worst in baseball. I really hope that they don't think people will consider keeping ARam as a successful offseason, but who knows. They've shown very little interest in making their constituents happy. I think you're overestimating the fallout from letting Ramirez walk. It seems the collective masses think that Ramirez isn't "clutch" and that he can't be counted on because the worst two months (arguably) of his career coincided with Lee's injury. Indeed, virtually everyone I talk to about Ramirez bemoans the fact that he's only performing now that it "doesn't matter." Obviously, all of that is utter nonsense. But I think that's what the masses generally believe. And that means that ditching Ramirez wouldn't generate much of a backlash, except from the folks that have been engaged in a constant backlash for the last 24 months (at least). And we know how effective that's been. Now, if I was a betting man (who I am kidding with that phrase) -- As a betting man, my sense is that he stays. I just don't think it would create a huge stir if he left.

Not unless the current people do some serious soul searching and say, "You know what? The way we're doing things just isn't working, and it leads only to hit-and-miss results." That hasn't happened yet. Great job as always, Bruce. You are truly a beacon of light in an increasingly dense fog. Your co-hort, Barry Rozner's column was laughable today. Rozner's only concerns appears to be the happiness of Greg Maddux. I've never noticed such blatant sycophantic journalism in the sports world, outside of a Derek Jeter article. Several times a year he writes about how great Maddux is and about the Cubs responsibility to do right by Maddux. Imrem's take was interesting in comparison. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the Rozner is more than friendly with Boras. If you recall correctly, it Rozner that suggested during Maddux's 2004 free agency that he had an offer of something like, IIRC, $60 million/4 years (or something similarly absurd).

By VORP, Ronny Cedeno is the worst shortstop in baseball. Notably, Barrett is the second-best catcher (behind super-human Joe Mauer).