Warren Brusstar

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.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that piece of work. Wouldn't surprise me if it was one of my friends (and I use that term very loosely). The only Cards fans I know are complete morans... Who is the girl in your avatar?

There is a sigular credible argument from the "wins have value" folks, although it's not really an argument for wins per se, it is instead an argument against ERA, OPS against, or other similar run prevention metrics as the sole method of valuing pitchers. The argument is this: anyone that has played the game knows that a pitcher pitches differently with a 10 run lead than he does with a 1 run lead. With a 10 run lead, a pitcher endeavors to throw as many strikes as possible because a solo HR won't really hurt his chances of winning, while walking hitters creates the potential for a big inning. In contrast, a pitcher with a one run lead must pitch more carefully because a solo home run will cost his team the lead, while a walk, in context, is not as damaging. Thus, pitchers on great offensive teams may have slightly higher ERA's because they more often pitch with big leads. The SABR community -- of which I am a part -- seems disinclined to acknowledge this issue, most likely because there is no good way to quantify its effect on a pitcher's ERA. In Joe Sheehan's column today (in which he chided the BBWA for giving the Cy Young Award to Colon), he observed that Bartolo Colon received 6.0 runs per game, while Johan Santana received 4.7 runs per game. Sheehan argued that Santana was better in every way that a pitcher can control, including that his ERA (2.87) was better than Colon's ERA (3.48). He's right. But because it did not support his argument, Sheehan failed to point out that one of the reasons why Colon's ERA is higher is because he more often pitched with big leads. (It stands to reason that Colon more often pitched with big leads because his team averaged 1.3 more runs per game than Santana's team) How much of the .6 run difference in ERA can be explained by this fact? Probably not very much (and there's no good way to quantify it in any event). But at the very least, the fact that pitchers may pitch differently with big leads is enough to conclude that a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA was not necessarily a more effective pitcher thatn a pitcher with a 3.10 ERA pitching in front of the same defense in the same ballpark.

Neifi is a much better defensive SS (as compared to other shortstops) than Corey is a defensive CF. Patterson is not in the same league as Hunter, Jones, Cameron, Edmonds. let edmonds, hunter, jones, and cameron play with a brick wall behind them. it's a completely different game. edmonds? oh no, you didn't. FRAR for the past four seasons: Patterson: 1, 6, 21, 13 Edmonds: 26, 20, 28, 34 I'm sure it's all the brick wall. :roll: I appreciate your patronizing tone, though. It might be less offensive if you had a clue about that which you're speaking. Don't you think that's a little over the top for a response as ambiguous as his? As much as I hate Edmonds, he's a fine defender, but fielding statistics are far from being as refined and conclusive as offensive numbers. I also would like to start a movement to never use the eye roll emoticon again, ever, by anyone. Anyone with me? Fine with me. I'm just giving it back to him (the king of the eye roll)

Neifi is a much better defensive SS (as compared to other shortstops) than Corey is a defensive CF. Patterson is not in the same league as Hunter, Jones, Cameron, Edmonds. let edmonds, hunter, jones, and cameron play with a brick wall behind them. it's a completely different game. edmonds? oh no, you didn't. FRAR for the past four seasons: Patterson: 1, 6, 21, 13 Edmonds: 26, 20, 28, 34 I'm sure it's all the brick wall. :roll: I appreciate your patronizing tone, though. It might be less offensive if you had a clue about that which you're speaking.

LOL. Unless by "some prospects," you mean Pie, then you must be kidding about getting Sizemore.

Neifi is a much better defensive SS (as compared to other shortstops) than Corey is a defensive CF. Patterson is not in the same league as Hunter, Jones, Cameron, Edmonds.

Now for those who don't watch Poker on ESPN, Foxsports, etc, etc.....Phil Helmuth is one of the biggest CRYBABIES in poker, or sports entertainment, period. When he lost to Anne Dukes, his lost it. So, for ARod to assoicate himself with Phil Helmuth, speaks volumes about the character of Alex Rodriguez. And for ARod sake, if he wants to play poker, he needs to do it in legitmate places, not back alley "bars", so to speak. This post is too drama queen-y

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.... Why pay $10M a year for something that you could possibly get for 400K? Pie is right around the corner. Damon may be more of a sure thing, but I'd be willing to bet that he won't be worth anywhere near what he'll get paid. Why make the playoffs when we can keep filling seats for a .500 club? I agree it would be great if Pie pans out for 400k, but we haven't had very good luck with homegrown position players. If the missing piece is a leadoff guy why wouldn't we spend the money to get it this year instead of hoping for next year. There is a reason they are called prospects and not sure things....Hill, Choi, Patterson didn't do anything for us, thank God we traded two of them for productivity. If Pie is everything he's supposed to be then we can trade Damon or Pie for whatever we need to fill holes at that time. If acquiring Johnny Damon (and as a result not using that $10 million/year to address other holes) would significantly aid the Cubs in getting to the playoffs, you might actually have a point. I'd rather use the $10 million/year on something that, you know, is actually worth $10 million/year

How many Domincan players did the Braves have? Not many. Maybe that's why he was drunk all the time.

I don't think that's accurate. My recollection is that Dusty justified using Mark Guthrie (instead Dave Veres and others) in the 10th inning of Game 1, because he did not want Veres "to have to face Lenny Harris," who was available as a pinch hitter from the left side. So instead, he used Guthrie -- and the Marlins usedLowell, who was available as a pinch hitter from the right side.

No, No, No, No, No. I'd rather take the chance that Corey will get better. He'll be cheaper and, if he does, he'll have trade value. Jacque Jones is the quintessential Hendry-player. Toolsy. Decent numbers in all of the triple crown numbers. No plate discipline. No real power. Way overvalued. I will puke if the Cubs sign Jacque Jones. Under any circumstances.

Steve Stone is a drama queen, know-it-all. If you think Dusty is stubborn, you can't even imagine a Steve Stone-run team...

After horrible umpiring in the LCS, MLB's response is to assign to the World Series two of MLB's most confrontational umpires -- West and Hernandez. Nice message: "Yeah, we screwed up, but it never would have been an issue if the managers had stayed in their dugouts and not demanded that calls be corrected. We'll show you. In the World Series, the managers had better not dare question the umpiring."

Two good trades? Even as a loyal, loyal Choi defender, I'm compelled have to say that Hendry has at least one more "good" trade . . .

Santo posted better offensive numbers than Madlock in an era that was tougher to hit in. Santo walked. Madlock didn't. Santo hit for power. Madlock didn't. Santo was a gold glove defender. Madlock was not. It used to really, really piss me off when the media would reflectively state that the "Cubs haven't had a legitimate 3B since Ron Santo" Bill Madlock was a pretty darn good one. And, to a lesser extent, Ron Cey was decent for a couple years. That said, Bill Madlock can't sniff Ron Santo's jock.

Unfortunately, I think there is a strong, strong chance that Jacque Jones will be manning one of the corner OF positions next year. :cry:

Pathetic. No more "Riot", please.

*sigh* Nice laydown. I'll take that to mean you concede the point. FWIW, I don't have anything against Theriot. I'm thrilled for the kid. I just think it's hilarious when people are pining for Dusty to play every mediocre non-prospect in the system. Also, I think it's a bit hypocritcal for people to be frustrated by Dusty's refusal to play kids, while at once not finding fault in that same kid's failure to get a bunt down. If you didn't "expect" him to get the bunt down when he was sent to the plate -- like you would if it were Perez/Patterson/etc. -- how can you fault Dusty for thinking likewise? I think it was more that he no longer wanted to have to stand in the face of idiocy. Thanks for addressing the substance of my post. In any event, you win the name-calling contest. Hooray!

*sigh* Nice laydown. I'll take that to mean you concede the point. FWIW, I don't have anything against Theriot. I'm thrilled for the kid. I just think it's hilarious when people are pining for Dusty to play every mediocre non-prospect in the system. (Obviously, the Cubs should have Murton out there every day) Also, I think it's a bit hypocritcal for people to be frustrated by Dusty's refusal to play kids, while at once not finding fault in that same kid's failure to get a bunt down. If you didn't "expect" him to get the bunt down when he was sent to the plate -- like you would if it were Perez/Patterson/etc. -- how can you fault Dusty for thinking likewise?

Patterson wouldn't have had that at bat because there's not way he would have fouled those pitches off. he would've messed up the bunt twice and then whiffed on the next pitch. And also, Patterson is now in his 4th major league season. That was Theriot's first MLB at-bat. And he already did better than Patterson. So, your point is totally invalid. So, it's okay for you to have lesser standards for Theriot (and other call-ups) because they're young, while at once being outraged that Dusty thinks young players are too inexperienced to play? It seems to me you can't have it both ways. Either you expect them to succeed, or you don't. And if you don't, you can't really get mad at the manager when he similarly expects failure.

Hysterical. Had Patterson had the same at bat that Theriot just had, the you people would be shredding him.

I'm not sure how (1) failing to get the bunt down, then (2) taking a called third strike can be called a "Good AB," but, hey, whatever. He fouled off a couple pitches though! :roll:

Swing the bat dinkus. Freaking inexcusable. Can't get the bunt down, then takes strike three called.

It's the right thing to do.