User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6333 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
What am I thinking? LFH was here for 4 months!
Now if they'd only kept Lenny F'ing Harris a couple of days longer...
One key, I suppose, will be the alternatives. Even if they don't deal him, I've given up on the idea of Bobby Hill being a saviour. What FA's are available? As I see it, Mark Loretta, Placido Polanco, Luis Castillo, Todd Walker, Roberto Alomar, maybe Eric Young? Ick.
<i>Player To Be Named Later
Thank you for correcting me!
Meanwhile, our wise GM is considering deals for Tony Womack or Ronnie Belliard. Ick.
Bad news fo' da Cubbies in that Grudz having a bad 'nuff August 'n September could help da chances that they don't sign tha dude's ass long-term instead of thanking tha dude's ass fo' da season 'n sending tha dude's ass on tha dude's way n' ####. Bad news fo' da Cubbies in that a bad August 'n September fo' Grudz is better than what Augie Ojeda's likely do fo' da Cubs n' ####.
ad NEws fRo teh cibbe1s in that grudz haivng a b4d enough 4ugUst nnd septemBar could help teh chancez thAt they dont sign him long-term instead of thannjing him fro the sesson and sending him pn ihs wAy,,, bad ness for the cubbeis in th4t a bad august and sEptemmbar fro gurfz is bettar than what augie ojedas likely to do for teh coubs/
I actually believe that Choi IS a worse hitter than Randall Simon right now (defense is another story), and I blame Dusty Baker for that.
Before the season started, Baker was already ######## about Bellhorn's approach at the plate - you know, the approach that netted him 27 HR and a .374 OBA the previous year. I gave Baker the benefit of the doubt at the time, figuring that there ARE players who look at too many pitches and see a decline in performance, players like Todd Hundley. While Bellhorn's P/PA rate remained pretty much the same as always, he was not the same hitter this year.
Choi is also a guy who looks at a lot of pitches, and it's been clear to me as the season has progressed that he has been trying to be more aggressive early in the count, to no advantage.
Before the season even started, Baker was complaining about guys with Choi's hitting approach (contemptuously associating it with the Oakland organization). Now we find that both of the Cubs' hitters with that approach have tanked. Causality can't be determined here, but I am awfully suspicious.
This is not to say that Choi would not benefit from a more aggressive approach early in the count, nor that in the long run he won't be a better hitter if he can tweak that. But the fact is that he is hitting far worse now than he was early in the season and the Cubs could really use a good lefty bat right now.
Er, should have said "guys with Bellhorn's hitting approach", which of course would include Choi.
Randall Simon looks like the inadequate, but "aggressive" hitter that Dusty thinks is good. Simon offers nothing now (let's pray he's nontendered this winter).
Actually, I don't think of Bonds as a take and rake guy of the type Choi is trying to be. I think Bonds is quite aggressive, but ONLY when the pitch is a strike, and he almost always accomplishes something when the ball is in the strike zone. Choi, on the other hand, looks at a lot of strikes and lately hasn't done much with them when he swings.
I believe the great hitters ARE, more often than not, more aggressive than Choi and Bellhorn, but we have to look at who these two guys are. Bellhorn is someone who struggled to hit in the major leagues, but finally had a breakthrough year at age 27. Sorry, but when that happens, you don't screw with it. The way you coach a Bellhorn is to make sure he continues to do what he did before, perhaps making adjustments as pitchers adjust. In the case of Choi, you already have two stellar models for the hitter the Cubs should try to make him: Jim Thome and Jason Giambi. Both are outstanding power hitters who draw a lot of walks and look at a lot of pitches. Hee Seop Choi should be shown film of Jim Thome until his eyeballs bleed.
Choi needs to learn to be more like Bonds in the sense that he needs to do more with the pitches in the zone. "More aggressive" should not be the goal, and we can only hope that isn't the sort of advice he's getting from the Cubs.
Your mention of Giambi (I've seen him a lot more than I've seen Thome) is a great model for Choi to study. He knows what pitches he can hit, and more importantly what he can't hit well.
If there's any bright side, it could be that Simon would be a more effective lefty off the bench than TOF'L -- considering that he never plays in the field anyway, I wouldn't mind the deal if the Cubs' intentions were to keep Choi in the starting lineup, put Simon on the bench as a lefty pinch-hitter and emergency OF, and dump TOF'L. Sadly, this doesn't appear the case.
Things will get even hairier soon, though -- TFG is expected back soon. Look for the Cubs to send Choi to Iowa.
Dusty isn't the GM, but fact is I cannot say with certainty that he isn't the man to ask first when arranging a trade with the Cubs.
Sadler for Simon's a nice flip for the Bucs. There's a lot to like about Sadler: He's fast, he plays good D, and he's got gap power and the potential to develop more. The walk rate's not great, but it's also the best of his career, so maybe he's working on it.
Simon wasn't that bad a gamble for the Bucs, since he had a power spike in 2002 in a tough power park and he was approaching his age-27 season. Giving up three prospects for him was overpaying pretty badly, and while Burnside and Novoa look like dogs at this point, Kody Kirkland has the potential to make it really painful.
I feel like a character in an Updike novel, silently screaming about a problem nobody else sees, while I sip gin into oblivion.
I'm looking for a bright side. The best I can come up with is that since Ramirez bats righty, they won't bring in Todd Zeile. But they probably will anyway.
Womack's OBP by months:
210 April
Womack's 2002 OBP (!) by months:
210 April
Also, I'm glad that we are still, in some small way, able to help Dusty lose.
Projected August lineup, c. February:
2B Hill
That said, I'm almost ready to give up hope on the Hendry/Baker regime. The promise I held for the future was based on homegrown (or at least harvested) talent such as Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Cruz, and Farnsworth (among current major league pitching talent) and Patterson, Choi, Hill, and Kelton (among current major league hitting talent).
Of these, Wood, Prior, Zambrano, and Farnsworth have "knocked down the door" in the sense that *no* team would refuse to play them. As a result, I give the Cubs no credit for giving playing time to these pitchers. The same may also be true for Patterson, although it wouldn't shock me to find him a lesser player in 2004 than at the promise he showed in 2003.
What's left is Cruz, Choi, Hill, and Kelton -- each of whom quite typically didn't immediately set the world on fire after being called up, only to be quickly shown the bench/first bus to Iowa while the Cubs have brought in, paraded, and/or given countless chances to the likes of Alfonseca, Estes, LFH, TFG, Glanville, TOF'L, Simon, and now Womack(?). (I'm ignoring what happened to Bellhorn.)
If this isn't bad enough, what will happen at the end of the year? Will the Cubs make Cruz the 5th starter or even give him a legitimate chance at the job, or will they sign another veteran? Will they resign Grudzielanek and/or Womack? Will they give a legitimate chance to David Kelton and Brendan Harris to win jobs in the OF and IF, respectively? What happens if Choi doesn't hit .350 in spring training -- will he be kept in limbo? Will he even be given that opportunity, or will the Cubs resign Karros and/or Simon? Heck, if Patterson isn't at 100% health and/or ability, will they resign Lofton?
The fact that all of these are legitimate questions scares the bejeezus out of me.
I also want to know what happens when Grudzielanek and TFG return.
I'd rather run Augie out there than Womack. At least Augie's fun to root for (even though you know better) and can play D.
I'm not sure I can even really root for them anymore...I know I won't be able to watch a lineup with Womack, Simon, and Goodwin or Glanville in it...I like to keep my meals down...
At this point, however, the temps keep piling up, while the younger players continue to be benched/exiled. While most of these temps won't be back next year, I can't help but feel that next year will see a new batch because "the kids haven't proven themselves yet, and we can't trust them yet when we're so close to contention." I also, for the first time, have legitimate doubts as to whether Hendry shares Baker's philosophies as opposed to simply letting him pilot the ship.
It all goes back to something someone told me last year: The reason the Cubs haven't won in forever is because they are too afraid to fail. They would never have a season like this year's Indians, for instance -- essentially sacrificing the year for the sake of a greater 2004-05.
It's a bad sign as a trend, but it's not truly disturbing like the Randall Simon pickup accompanied by the season-long mishandling of Choi.
Best line is on rotoworld, "how many pinch-runners does a team need?"
Career HIGH OPS of .702.
Amen, but Hendry relegating these decisions to Baker exhibits spinelessness AND stupidity in Hendry. Thus, blaming Baker means blaming Hendry twice over, in my opinion.
I am actually beginning to think that the Cubs are using NO performance metrics in evaluating players. None. I'm not talking about cerebral stuff like OPS, I'm talking about batting average, HR and RBI. None of it.
I'm serious.
Here are the career OBP of Hendry's acquisitions to date (career/this year):
Lofton: .372/.335
The worst thing about the trades the Cubs have pulled recently is that they make it seriously hard to root for the team this year. Not only because the names on the backs of the jerseys aren't "Choi" and "Hill," but also because if the Cubs make the playoffs this year (and there's a good chance they will, TFW notwithstanding), the following will likely happen:
1. The media will attribute it to Proven Veteran Chemistry;
Dusty was pretty good as a player, with only one really bad season once he got established. (Career OPS+ 116) He may yet earn the F for his managerial shenanagans, but I think his playing career is good enough to offset that for now.
And if David Gee has given us clearence, I hearby bestow an F upon Mr. Womack. (He of the career 75 OPS+, with a high of 82.)
Womack has nothing to do with this because he can't help a team win now in any role whatsoever. He's not a good player that us statheads like to rag on like Garret Anderson or a player who contributes a bit who we give a hard time to like Juan Encarnacion.
Womack is a terrible hitter, his speed is nothing like it was in recent years, and he's an awful defensive player at either second or short. At this point, he's Augie Ojeda without the glove.
- Only 1/2 game out of first place
The Cubs are a team that could field probably the best top-to-bottom rotation in baseball, a decent bullpen with a few guys having super years and on offense, disappointing production only at catcher and 3B.
That they're actually a half game out and barely above .500 in the NL Central strikes me as disappointing.
Please, permit us our fun. It's all we have lefffft.
I would LOVE it if the F's retired. They should have retired years ago.
As someone rooting for the D-Backs in the wild card chase, I count on you to perform to your abilities.
Kenny Lofton's from East Chicago.
I don't claim to an expert on curses, but I'm under the distinct impression they don't work retroactively...
What's interesting is that this is one more trip back to MIN for Andy MacPhail. In his time with the Cubs he's gone back to the Twins for a ton of players:
I know that Hawkins was the Twins' closer for a period and did not have great success in that role. I have a hard time believing that Hawkins' improvement is a product of pitching earlier in the game, as opposed to just getting better with experience.
If you do not like spending $11 million over three years (and a first round draft pick) for a reliever, fine. If you do not like spending the money because you believe that Hawkins could not succeed as a closer and only in the middle innings, I disagree with your assessment. And, if you just don't like the signing because Hawkins is not a "proven closer", think it through some more.
Hawkins is not old, and he has maintained excellent walk and K rates for the last two years. Decent relievers are a dime a dozen, but relievers with good stuff and 5:1 K:BB ratios are not. The Cubs really only had two relievers last year with good walk rates, Borowski and Veres, and Veres is unlikely to come back. I think the Cubs definitely need a guy with Hawkins' skill set on the 2004 roster, and unless someone can come up with a different option that would have been cheaper, I will conclude that this was a good acquisition. I think it's paying a lot, but I also think Hawkins is worth it.
The problem will come when Hendry signs another multi-million dollar reliever.
These are basically my thoughts. I agree that the Cubs could use some help in the bullpen. I agree that Hawkins is a great reliever. I agree that Hawkins at just over $3mm/yr is well priced compared to some of the Cubs past reliever excursions. To the extent I have a problem, it is that I'm not convinced that the Cubs should be spending $11mm on a reliever, regardless of his quality. IMO, the bullpen is a prime area where a resourceful team can get quality on the cheap and that, once again, Hendry has decided to pay retail prices (to adopt David Gee's phrase). I guess what I'm saying is that I don't oppose Hawkins -- certainly not to the extent I would oppose paying for Grudzielanek or Vina -- but I would have preferred they save the money for use elsewhere (Vidro, extending Lee's deal, signing Wood, etc.)
On another Cub note, what are people's thoughts about the OF? Alou's gone after 2004. Not that I think it'll happen, but I'd like to see them give 200 ABs to Kelton, backing up Alou and/or Lee, just to see if he pans out. In the meantime, they can see if Dubois pans out in Iowa and let Pie and Harvey develop in Daytona and Boise, respectively.
I like both Kelton and Dubois, but I don't think either is starting for the Cubs in 2005. (Although Dusty said nice things about Kelton in spring training last year.) I think Alou's money goes to a free agent LF signing. Pie and Harvey are still a ways away.
For the OF, I think it's a make or break year for Kelton, Nick Jackson and Dubois. I hope they all get a chance to get big league AB's or a full season at Iowa to sort it out. IF the Cubs are lucky, they may get a platoon combo out of some combination of the 3 in 2004, but I'm not counting on it. I think it's best not to think about Pie or Harvey for a couple years and then be happy if they are still on track.
Or was I subconsciously predicting an Alou leg injury next April.
Yeah, but to the extent it hurt all that much, it's because of when Dusty used them. The "serious dead weight" was Alfonseca (ERA+ of 73). Veres wasn't awful (ERA+ of 91) and didn't pitch many innings (33). The rest of the guys were solid or better: Borowski (161), Farnsworth (129), Remlinger (116), Guthrie (155 but only 43 IP). If Dusty doesn't give Alfonseca 66 IP in some crucial situations (after missing at least a month or more), that's a quite effective pen.
But the lesson is that the three most effective guys (Borowski, Farnsworth, and Guthrie) were the three least expensive guys ($410 K, $600 K, and $1.6 M respectively).
I don't like spending money on relievers because I just don't think their performance is very predictable. Remlinger's 2001 and 2002 were just about as impressive as Hawkins' 2002 and 2003. Remlinger was much older so a better bet to decline of course, but I wouldn't be all that surprised to see Hawkins post an ERA+ down around 120 this year -- still fine, but not top performance. Why? Because that happens with relievers all the time.
That said, if you're going to spend money on relievers, spend it on the ones with good track records. Compared to the Alfonseca signing, this is absolute pure genius. Of course, that's basically what I said last year when the Cubs signed Remlinger. :-)
Roy Hobbs -- I see Kelton on the Cubs bench thoughout 2004, the question will be how many ABs he sees. Jackson is probably a lost cause at this point. As for Dubois, I'm not expecting the moon and the stars, but we'll have to see if he can use 2004 in Iowa to combine plate discipline with his promising production. If so, perhaps he would be a viable 5th OF in 2005.
You're absolutely correct about Pie and Harvey, of course; I just wanted to mention them as long-run possibilities. Pie needs more plate discipline, but he's still quite young. IMO, if he pans out, he's more of a Kenny Lofton-type CFer. Harvey is even further out to make any judgements.
Also agreed about Dubois -- he has little chance (and shouldn't have the chance) to spend significant time in 2004 at any place other than Iowa. He probably won't pan out to be anything more than Kelton, but let's see.
Take all that FWIW ("for what it's worth"). Of course, YMMV ("your mileage may vary").
HTH ("hope that helps").
That's absolutely right, but I don't think the conclusion from that is necessarily "never ever sign a reliever to a three-year, $11 million deal." I think Hawkins could post an ERA+ around 120 this year, or worse, but it won't necessarily mean that his performance is inherently volatile, it might mean that the numbers are volatile, or any of a number of things.
Remlinger had a worse year in 2003, but his HR and BB rates both increased quite a bit, and of course Baker used him more as a LOOGY than Cox did. Why Remlinger performed worse in 2003 is a matter of speculation, but I don't think it reflects any inherent performance volatility in relievers. I would say 1) he did a worse job, 2) was not used optimally and 3) small sample sizes had something to do with it. I see no reason to expect Hawkins to have any of these problems and I'm going to try not to let statistical vagaries affect that evaluation. If Hawkins puts up a 4 ERA, but maintains a 5:1 K:BB ratio, I will not conclude that he was a bad risk.
The problem with giving relievers lots of money is that they aren't in the game much, but like anything else there are many factors determining their value. Is a top 20 reliever worth nearly $4 million per year and a three year commitment? I think the answer to that depends partly on context. I think reliability, where it exists in relief pitchers, is value, and I'd say Hawkins brings a good deal of reliability with him. The Cubs have some good relief arms but not a whole lot of reliability, so this is a commodity they can definitely use. There are few pitchers in the majors who bring that to the degree Hawkins does, and most of them cost a lot more, so I would conclude that the value here is good.
-- I'm not so sure of this, Joe M. Considering how many players the Twins have had to pass over through the years because of bonus demands, having a #1 pick may not be all it's cracked up to be. (For instance, in 2001, the Twins selected Joe Mauer -- who is a fantastic prospect, but certainly no Mark Prior.) Of course, most folks think the latest CBA changed all this and made slotting of bonuses much more viable, which would make the pick more valuable to the Twins.
Also, the Cubs #1 pick in 2004 will, happily, be more toward the end of the first round than usual.
I didn't say that his performance would be volatile. On the one hand, all we can predict is ability. On the other hand, if due to random variation that ability doesn't reliably translate into value, the investment hasn't done you any good.
If you want, you can take what I'm saying as:
1) the signal to noise ratio for pitchers is so high, that we have a harder time judging true ability;
2) due at least to randomness and higher injury risk, the connection between today's ability and tomorrow's value is much lower for pitchers than for hitters;
3) due to small sample sizes and other factors, (1) and (2) are doubly true for relievers.
I'm not saying that Hawkins is a bad risk, but I'm not willing to say this is a good signing either. Look at last year's leaders in ARP:
Gagne: $550 k (the Jays could have had him for Izturis)
I think the difference in our arguments is that I am really weighing K and BB rates heavily.
One might argue with the extent to which I value K and BB rates in relievers, but here is the list of relievers taken from yours above who have managed K and BB rates similar to those Hawkins has maintained for the last two years:
Gagne: $550 k
It was his first good year in awhile, in a contract year. He's a 33 (34?) year old injury-prone catcher.
If true, I guess it's a good move by the Cubs only in that they're trading the same stats but gaining 7 years in age (and probably more offensive upside). I still worry, though, that Miller was the steering hand that guided the Cubs young pitchers last year. I don't know Barrett's reputation for game calling, but given that pitching was the Cubs' strength, I'm wary of mucking with it.
Of course, if this is just a prelude to signing IRod and making Barrett a sub (and he is an ideal backup C given that he can also play the infield positions), then I'm all for it.
Seriously. Look -- goosebumps.
I don't think defense is a negative in this trade, which I think is a weak plus for the Cubs.
Improving from nothing to something is a good step, particularly given Oakland's cash consciousness that probably prevented them from going after a Lopez or Rodriguez (or swinging a deal to pick up Kendall and his salary). Barrett might have been the best available option for them. The Cubs, OTOH, seem to be willing to put more money into the fray. As a result, their decision (thus far) to settle for Barrett when the bigger fish are still out there is more disappointing.
Plus the comparisons stating that Barrett is better than Miller almost exclusively turn on the fact that he's younger and could potentially be better. Right now (at least comparing last year), the difference is fairly negligible.
However, I reserve the right to celebrate happily should the Cubs sign one of the top catchers and make Barrett a (what could be very useful) C/INF sub who starts (particularly with Dusty there) 30-40 games next year.
Barrett doesn't have any versatility. He's a mediocre defensive C who is wildly inconsistent at bat, and that's it. He should not be considered as a possibility at 3B - he was an out-and-out disaster at third in Montreal. think of the worst defensive player you've ever seen at any position - Barrett at 3B was worse. decent hands and an OK arm, but absolutely no range (one step and then dive) and atrocious reaction time (the ball would be 2/3 of the way to 3B before he'd even start to move). Barrett at 3B was ugly. Very, very ugly.
when Barrett was playing 3B, the expos ERA was ~0.75 runs higher than when Barrett was at C. I've seen a couple of analyses that estimate the Barrett's defense at 3B was responsible for the vast majority of that difference. Think about it - a guy who is 0.5-0.75 runs a game worse than average defensively.
then again, I don't like the Cubs, so i guess I hope they do play him at 3B.
Scot.
As for his offense, I like him better than Miller at this point (with Miller's history of back problems), but I don't see him getting much better than he already is. He wasn't much of an acquisition for the A's, and he's not much of one for the Cubs, either.
That said, he's inexpensive enough that the trade doesn't necessarily preclude the possiblity of the Cubs signing a marquee FA and making him the backup.
--Not that Lopez is a Gold Glove candidate, but he's not Mike Piazza either. Maddux has used Eddie Perez and others as his personal catcher, but from everything I've heard, it was because of personal animosity between Lopez and Maddux -- the two loathe each other -- not necessarily because Lopez is such a bad receiver.
As for Barrett, I don't see how one can look at a guy who's put up OPS+ of 94, 43, 64, 96, and now 63 as being an offensive upgrade over Miller. Yes, he's coming into his "magical" age 27 season and he was once a promising prospect, but from what he's shown in the last 5 years, Damian Miller is his upside, not his minimum.
The Braves liked Perez so much they grabbed him back today.
Oh, no - what will the Brewers do now?
Looking at Wright's ZiPS projection, he'd still be an upgrade over 2003 Estes. Of course, it's like that scene from the Simpsons where Moe is complaining because crows are pecking his eyes out, so they switch to his crotch, which he says is even worse, so they go back to his eyes.
"Oh, yeah. After the crotch, that almost feels good."
Nicely sums up replacing Crotch Estes with Eyes Wright. Let's hope Dusty's never seen that episode...
That Sabean is tricksy, he is. Oh, wait, I forgot - he couldn't get rid of the draft pick by signing HollandsworthnotthatmuchbutmorethanTucker
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main