Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Cubs - Acquired Gerut

Chicago Cubs - Acquired OF Jody Gerut from the Cleveland Indians for OF Jason Dubois.

The Cubs were never going to get anything anyway out of Dubois while Dusty Baker was the manager, but I’d still call the Indians the winner in this trade.  The Cubs get a really good 4th outfielder, while the Indians get a LF/DH who should hit 350/500 for a while.  Really good 4th outfielders have value, but with 4th outfielder-type Hollandsworth on the team already, the value is limited.  Gerut might sneak in some playing time in center when Murton goes 0-4 and Baker decides he needs 6 weeks on the bench to “help” him get out of his slump, but Gerut is stretched as a centerfielder.

Dubois doesn’t have an instant starting job with Cleveland, but there’s more of an opportunity there for him and the Indians will do a better job at giving him a chance.  None of this “You’re an important part of this platoon!  That is, until that night you strike out looking!” crap that the Cubs pulled.

Projections later - I’m not at the Oracle Supercomputer¬©

Dan Szymborski Posted: July 19, 2005 at 01:20 PM | 99 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

   1. FDR Jones Posted: July 19, 2005 at 01:47 PM (#1482773)
The universe does not hang in the balance.
   2. 1k5v3L Posted: July 19, 2005 at 01:50 PM (#1482780)
Oh well, time to drop DuBois in my NL only league.

That sumb!tch Busty Daker.
   3. RickG Posted: July 19, 2005 at 02:14 PM (#1482815)
The DH factor improves the way the Indians look in this one.
   4. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 02:41 PM (#1482875)
It sounds as if Dan's basis for opining that the Indians "win" is not because of Dubois or Gerut, but because of his faith that Dusty won't give him as much playing time as Wedge gives Dubois. Seems a rather silly way to award winners and losers, even if it is true.

IMO, neither side wins or loses. I like the deal from the Indians perspective because it gives them flexibility and upside. From the Cubs standpoint, we'll have to see how he's used. The worst that could happen would be a 2-month rental, only to see them cut Gerut loose, but that's their choice and the loss may not be all that burdensome.
   5. Walt Davis Posted: July 19, 2005 at 02:52 PM (#1482900)
If Dubois' defensive value is as low as some suggest, then this doesn't really do anything for the Indians, even longer-term, unless they're planning to move Hafner to 1B (or teach Dubois 1B).

If Dubois' defensive value is as low as some suggest (and assuming Gerut is better), I'm OK with this trade from the Cubs' perspective.

If Dubois' defensive problems were just a short-term case of the yips, then the Cubs don't look so good on this.
   6. Spahn Insane Posted: July 19, 2005 at 02:52 PM (#1482903)
The real winner in this trade is Jason Dubois, if for no other reason than he's now in a league where his talents can be better used, and his limitations better avoided (aside from the benefit of getting the hell away from Dusty Baker).

From the Cubs' perspective, I'd rather have seen Dubois packaged with a pitcher or two for someone who could make a real impact, like Dunn or Huff. My first thought was that Gerut's basically a younger and somewhat better version of Todd Hollandsworth (he even bats lefty, right?). I'm not really sure what the point is, unless another deal (perhaps involving Uncle Joey) is in the works.
   7. Mister High Standards Posted: July 19, 2005 at 02:58 PM (#1482913)
I don't see how anyone can claim this is a "win" for either team.

Both players are role players who will likely be better fits on their new clubs.

Neither player will get 500 PA for a good club, they are rotation players.
   8. Walt Davis Posted: July 19, 2005 at 02:59 PM (#1482916)
Of probably greater concern to me is that this is yet another example of Hendry allowing Dusty to run a useful player out of town. I don't know if Hendry just thinks a GM's job is to cater to his manager's desires; or Hendry agrees with Dusty's evaluation of talent and use of 2-week samples to judge it; or Dusty's got more pull with MacPhail et al.

Hendry's still doing a fine job, he usually manages to get fair-to-good return for these players. But I'm hoping he draws the line sometime.
   9. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 03:04 PM (#1482927)
Hendry's still doing a fine job, he usually manages to get fair-to-good return for these players. But I'm hoping he draws the line sometime.

The problem is, we'll never really know. For all we can see, it may have already happened.
   10. NoDak Posted: July 19, 2005 at 03:24 PM (#1482973)
A couple of thoughts on this from the cubs perspective (I haven't done the research on this from CLE perspective yet).

1. Whether it is rational or not, Dubois was not doing ANYTHING for CHC at this point warbling away at Iowa.

2. This is a minor trade. It is a trade of a number 4 outfielder for a number 4 outfielder. One considered to have more offensive upside for one that has more defensive upside. All in all, this is the definition of a minor trade.

3. Where does this put Hollandsworth? Could this be a "set-up" trade? Has Holly fallen out of favor with Hendry/Baker? Will Jody Gerut be packaged and sent somewhere for an "impact move." I remember when Hendry "gave up" on Bellhorn and sent him to COL for Jose Hernandez. A move that made no sense. Then, a couple of weeks later Hernandez was shipped to PIT for Ramirez/Lofton.

4. CHC is pretty high on Felix Pie and still seem sold on CoPat and Murton hasn't completely fallen out of favor with Baker. My guess is that they saw Dubois as relatively expendable.

As someone else has mentioned I would rather have seen Dubois packaged with another player for more of an "impact type" move, but JH is still not returning my called/emailed suggestions <wink>.
   11. jolietconvict Posted: July 19, 2005 at 03:27 PM (#1482978)
4. CHC is pretty high on Felix Pie and still seem sold on CoPat and Murton hasn't completely fallen out of favor with Baker. My guess is that they saw Dubois as relatively expendable.

Murton right now is getting the Dubois treatment. All it will take is a few games of 0 for 4 and he'll be riding the pine. For Christ's sake he's batting behind Neifi.
   12. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 03:51 PM (#1483020)
Has Holly fallen out of favor with Hendry/Baker?

Holly certainly hasn't fallen out of favor with Baker. Outside of the 2-week trial Dubois got back in May when UJ's OPS was hovering around .600, Dusty has steadfastly maintained since spring training that Hollandsworth is his guy and that the 148 ABs he got last year were enough to earn him a permanent place in the starting lineup. Now that Holly's numbers are actually creeping upward, Dusty's no more likely to put him on the bench than he is to bench Neifi for Ronny Cedeno.

I think there's another deal coming. Patterson won't rot away in AAA for the rest of the year, and if he's recalled and Murton goes down, there's really no good counterpart for the RHB part of the Uncle Joey platoon. I'd love to see them move Hollandsworth + for something and let Murton take the LF job full time for the last two months, just to see what he can do. But I'm living in a dream world.
   13. GregQ Posted: July 19, 2005 at 03:51 PM (#1483023)
I would think that batting behind Nefi would be good for a rookie. Sitting there going, god, I don't look that bad at the plate do I? must do wonders for their ego.
   14. GregQ Posted: July 19, 2005 at 03:53 PM (#1483026)
I would think that batting behind Nefi would be good for a rookie. Sitting there going, god, I don't look that bad at the plate do I? must do wonders for their ego.
   15. Gold Star for Robothal Posted: July 19, 2005 at 03:58 PM (#1483038)
Greg, I think you're right. I'm a relative rookie at posting here, and posting after you I sit here and go "Well, I don't have much useful to say but, god, I don't look that bad double posting do I?" It does wonders for my confidence.
   16. Indiansin12 Posted: July 19, 2005 at 04:22 PM (#1483078)
Unless Dubois' defense has been significantly underestimated by the posters here, I don't think this gives the Indians anything other than a pinch-hitter, or a DH if Hafner takes a while to come back or is injured again. Part of the reason Casey Blake (other then just generally sucking) has lost time to Gerut is that his defense is considered so bad out in RF. Hafner (despite the cries of Indians fans everywhere) will not play 1B. He is the DH. Wedge wouldn't play him there when he was fully healthly, and last month they announced that Hafner would not play 1B for the rest of the season due to some problem with his wrist/arm that only bothered him when he played the field.

Unless Dubois can play 1B, Broussard and Hernandez will continue to get the at bats there. Can Dubois play RF? Crisp has a weak arm (although not as weak as Sizemore's) and that is why he has been playing LF.

I don't think this situation is any better for Dubois. He does not have any place to play in Cleveland either, unless he can play RF.
I think Cleveland is worse off with Dubois in LF, Crisp/Blake in RF. Boone has been much better in the last two months, at least as good as, if not better than Blake offensively.

Before the trade here was the Indians lineup:
Crisp LF
Gerut/Blake RF
Boone 3B
Broussard/Hernandez 1B
Hafner DH

After the trade:
Dubois/Blake LF
Crisp/Blake RF
Crisp may be the everyday player here with Dubois platooning with Blake and switching positions, or maybe Dubois just rides the pine?
Boone/Blake? 3B
Usually when the Indians have given Boone a day off they have played Hernandez or Cora at third. I don't know how many games Blake has played at third this year but it is not many. Will they switch this up mid-season?
Broussard/Hernandez 1B
Hafner DH

With the defensive downgrade, and only the potential for an offensive upgrade, I think the Indians have made an unnecessary and poor move.
The Indians have potentially given themselves more flexibility, but they were already pretty flexible and Wedge has not shown much ability to make use of it. See Jose Hernandez, first baseman.
   17. Boots Day Posted: July 19, 2005 at 04:26 PM (#1483085)
Hendry agrees with Dusty's evaluation of talent and use of 2-week samples to judge it;

This is unfair. It's statistical analysts who need large samples of data to make sound judgments on players. People who are evaluating from more of a scouting basis, which I'm guessing Dusty is, don't take a half-season's worth of observation to make their judgments.

Dusty may be right about Dubois, or he may be wrong, but his evaluation has nothing to do with what his BA or his UZR or any other number is after two weeks of playing time. It's based on the fact that in watching the two of them with his own eyes, he thinks Hollandsworth is better.
   18. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 04:34 PM (#1483102)
Dusty has steadfastly maintained since spring training that Hollandsworth is his guy and that the 148 ABs he got last year were enough to earn him a permanent place in the starting lineup

I'd love to see them move Hollandsworth + for something and let Murton take the LF job full time for the last two months, just to see what he can do. But I'm living in a dream world.


If Dusty shouldn't do it for Hollandsworth, why would doing it for Murton be a better idea?
   19. GregQ Posted: July 19, 2005 at 04:37 PM (#1483105)
Tony, I knew I must serve some purpose!
   20. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: July 19, 2005 at 04:37 PM (#1483108)
Greg, I think you're right. I'm a relative rookie at posting here, and posting after you I sit here and go "Well, I don't have much useful to say but, god, I don't look that bad double posting do I?" It does wonders for my confidence.

Well then, consider this your first RDF MBS. That was a great post.

-------------------------------------------------

Dubois is as bad as everyone is assuming. I'm not sure if it is just nerves, but he's made some plays that even Manny wouldn't make. That being said, it's LF and they didn't seem to matter that much in the bigger scheme.

I'll agree with everyone who says this must be the first part of a bigger move. Earlier rumors for other OF always involved Dubois. Maybe there's a team out there who prefers Gerut to Dubois. I dunno. If the Indians didn't have a great DH, it'd be a win for them. We'll see.

This must mean Grieve is going back down. That's a shame, he's perfect for the PH role. Dusty won't let the bullpen go back down to 6 pitchers, so Macias is safe.

I just don't see the point yet.
   21. jolietconvict Posted: July 19, 2005 at 04:40 PM (#1483113)
Unless Dubois can play 1B, Broussard and Hernandez will continue to get the at bats there. Can Dubois play RF? Crisp has a weak arm (although not as weak as Sizemore's) and that is why he has been playing LF.

To me Dubois' only asset in the field was his arm which to me seemed decent.

If Dusty shouldn't do it for Hollandsworth, why would doing it for Murton be a better idea?

Because Hollandsworth is a career 4th outfielder and Murton has the chance to be an everyday player?
   22. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: July 19, 2005 at 04:40 PM (#1483116)
If Dusty shouldn't do it for Hollandsworth, why would doing it for Murton be a better idea?

Are you being serious? Hollandsworth is a 4th OF, and just about everyone in baseball knows that (except for Dusty). He's an excellent PH and occasional starter. No one knows what Murton is yet. He's 24 and a great OF prospect who was tearing up AA. The Cubs don't know what they have yet in him. They should see what he can do; there's a chance he's the answer for LF. Of course, that assumes the Cubs aren't playing for this year. But there's always the chance that Murton outperforms Holly the rest of the season.
   23. Boots Day Posted: July 19, 2005 at 05:04 PM (#1483165)
He's 24 and a great OF prospect who was tearing up AA.

There's something hinky about this sentence. When was the last time someone who tore up AA at age 24 turned into a star outfielder?

Anyway, near as I can tell, Murton is only 23, which helps his case somewhat.
   24. Mister High Standards Posted: July 19, 2005 at 05:05 PM (#1483168)
Boots thats a heck of a point! Glad to see it get addressed in the follow up posts... or not.
   25. Tony H. Posted: July 19, 2005 at 05:08 PM (#1483175)
It's always good when your team makes a trade with the Cubs. Everybody has a friend who is Cubs fan they can talk to about it.
   26. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: July 19, 2005 at 05:09 PM (#1483178)
Anyway, near as I can tell, Murton is only 23, which helps his case somewhat.

And that is what I meant to type. Thanks.
   27. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 05:17 PM (#1483199)
"When was the last time someone who tore up AA at age 24 turned into a star outfielder?"

He's not an outfielder, but otherwise Travis Hafner is a pretty good fit for that statement.
   28. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 05:20 PM (#1483212)
Anyone know where I can dig up historical minor league stats?

Pretty much all the sites for minor league stats are standardized, and while it's nice that they are sortable, none provide fielding stats (other than errors) nor do they allow one to check, say Southern League stats from 2001.
   29. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 05:27 PM (#1483234)
Boots thats a heck of a point! Glad to see it get addressed in the follow up posts... or not.

Rauseo thats a heck of a point! Way to follow up Boots' post with intelligent commentary...
   30. Gainsay Posted: July 19, 2005 at 05:32 PM (#1483244)
Boots has a good point in general that a baseball scout should not require a statistically signifcant amount of playing time to form an opinion.

I think there is ample evidence that Dusty Baker does not have a particularly good scouting eye, or doesn't have a good model of what skills make up a good baseball player.

As evidence I'd point to Bellhorn and the various lineup construction follies (Patterson/Perez at the top of the order) that Baker has made for the Cubs.
   31. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:08 PM (#1483323)
Boots has a good point in general that a baseball scout should not require a statistically signifcant amount of playing time to form an opinion.

It doesn't take a long time to form an opinion, but even as a scout, more exposure to a player will give one a better sense of their game. Players change their approaches, their swings, etc. all the time. Pitchers lose and regain stuff from start to start. Batters lose their timing and their offensive game can fall completely apart. According to a recent scouting report I read, Ben Grieve had a slow bat last year, a slower bat in ST, and then gained some bat speed in AAA. Unless there's some kind of obvious, Victor Zambrano like mechanical flaw, most scouts have to look at player several times at different points in a season to have a complete sense of good he is. Even as a scout, a two week sample is inadequate.
   32. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:10 PM (#1483325)
If Dusty shouldn't do it for Hollandsworth, why would doing it for Murton be a better idea?

I think everyone else pretty much said what I would say. Hollandsworth is what he is -- a 4th OF and pinch-hitting specialist. Murton is an unknown. Maybe he's a bust, but maybe he's a solid starter for the next 12 years.

It's the same reason we complained about Dusty playing UJ over Dubois. Dubois might have been terrible, but he also might have been a guy capable of putting up 280/360/500 seasons out in left field. That's worth exploring, particularly for a team that's unlikely to contend for the postseason this season and for a team using role players as starters in the first place.

(I'd make the same argument about Ronny Cedeno and Neifi Perez. Cedeno should be out there every day so we can find out if his .380 BA in AAA was a fluke or a sign of a possible star at SS.)
   33. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:20 PM (#1483349)
When was the last time someone who tore up AA at age 24 turned into a star outfielder?

Here are a few guys I'd offer -- "star" being defined as having placed in the top 30 OFs in OPS at least once since 2000:

Lew Ford -- Age 24 in 2001
Fort Myers (A -- 265 ABs): .298/.354/.392
New Britain (AA -- 252 ABs): .218/.281/.361
Following year: Split between AA and AAA

Casey Blake -- Age 24 in 1998
Dunedin (A -- 340 ABs): .350/.406/.547
Knoxville (AA -- 172 ABs): .372/.446/.628
Following year: Mainly at AAA, with a MLB callup

Mark Quinn -- Age 24 in 1998
Wichita (AA -- 372 ABs): .349/.420/.581
Following year: AAA, with a MLB callup

Jeff Conine -- Age 24 in 1990
Memphis (AA -- 487 ABs): .320/.433/.522
Kansas City (MLB -- 20 ABs): .250/.318/.350
Following Year: AAA
   34. Jake Taylor Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:22 PM (#1483354)
Also worth mentioning: Gerut will almost assuredly be a arb-eligible "Super 2" after this season and will probably get in the neighborhood of 1.5M for each of the 2006 and 2007 seasons, while Dubois will earn roughly 350K in both those seasons (before he likely becomes arb-eligible after 2007).

and the Indians' quest for a right-handed masher marches on....Ludwick...Phelps...Dubois
   35. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:24 PM (#1483358)
Yes, Murton is only 23, and I'm sure the list for 23 year olds is much longer.

My criteria was (a) the top 30 OFs in OPS for each of the 2000-05 seasons, (b) who played a significant amount of their age 24 year in AA.
   36. Boots Day Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:27 PM (#1483368)
I think there is ample evidence that Dusty Baker does not have a particularly good scouting eye, or doesn't have a good model of what skills make up a good baseball player.

I'd disagree with that. Baker decided that Bobby Hill couldn't play, when it seemed that everyone else in the world disagreed, and Baker has been more right about that one than the rest of the world. The Dodgers are discovering that Baker's assessment of Big Choi was more or less accurate.

On the other side of the coin, he saw positives in Michael Barrett after the Expos had more or less given up on him. The record's not perfect, but it's not bad either.

As evidence I'd point to Bellhorn

Bellhorn may be Dusty's biggest mistake. On the other hand,

1) Dusty decided Bellhorn was unacceptable at third base. Two other organizations have since reached the same conclusion.

2) Bellhorn had a very good year last year, but it was only the second good year of his career, and now, two years after Dusty dumped him, Red Sox fans are eager to dump him, too.

3) The end result of Dusty's hissy fit over Bellhorn was that the Cubs now have a much better third baseman. I wouldn't complain too much about it.
   37. Boots Day Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:32 PM (#1483381)
Thanks, Alfred (and Vlad) for tossing out those AA mashers. My question wasn't rhetorical.
   38. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:33 PM (#1483385)
I was curious as well -- in the back of my head, I figure that AA at age 24 isn't all that wonderful, but never really looked at specific cases.
   39. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:34 PM (#1483389)
On the other side of the coin, he saw positives in Michael Barrett after the Expos had more or less given up on him. The record's not perfect, but it's not bad either.

That was Hendry. Hendry was the one who really, really wanted Barrett. Of course Dusty played him, but his only other option at the time was Paul F Bako.
   40. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:36 PM (#1483395)
Baker decided that Bobby Hill couldn't play, when it seemed that everyone else in the world disagreed, and Baker has been more right about that one than the rest of the world. The Dodgers are discovering that Baker's assessment of Big Choi was more or less accurate.

I think the jury is still deciding Choi, but I'll concede Hill.


On the other side of the coin, he saw positives in Michael Barrett after the Expos had more or less given up on him.

For this, I'll credit Hendry. Baker didn't really do much -- he only had to choose Barrett over Paul Bako.
   41. FDR Jones Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:38 PM (#1483399)
tsn.ca has historical minor league stats, but probably not as in-depth as you're looking for.
   42. Boots Day Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:43 PM (#1483414)
That was Hendry. Hendry was the one who really, really wanted Barrett.

OK, fair enough.

Of course Dusty played him, but his only other option at the time was Paul F Bako.

But he wouldn't play Bellhorn, when his only other option was Lenny F Harris. Bako couldn't possibly have been worse than Harris, was he?
   43. Spahn Insane Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:50 PM (#1483428)
But he wouldn't play Bellhorn, when his only other option was Lenny F Harris. Bako couldn't possibly have been worse than Harris, was he?

Possibly. You ever look at Bako's career offensive numbers? They're pretty damned bad.

That's beside the point, though--I'm pretty sure that the key difference in Baker's mind is that Bellhorn is of a particular type of player (high walk/high K) that Baker particularly dislikes, unlike Barrett.

That, and Bako doesn't have Harris's "all-time pinch hit leader" fairy dust.
   44. Mel Hall and Lou Boudreau at Danley's Garage World Posted: July 19, 2005 at 06:51 PM (#1483433)
I've concluded (resigned, actually) that Baker just isn't an extensive "find out about" manager - Bakers sees that as "rebuilding". Baker is all about winning today.

It is interesting to "assess" Baker's eye on the various young players, tho. And he did eventually come around on Hendry's Dempster as closer idea. Wonder if Hairston/Walker at the top of the order was "Hendry's idea"...
   45. Rudy Pemberton Posted: July 19, 2005 at 07:00 PM (#1483452)
What am I missing about Dubois? K's a Bellhornian amount without the walks. Isn't good defensively. Gerut is a year older, but appears to be a better all around player. Of course, he doesn't have Custian potential.
   46. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 07:01 PM (#1483457)
Dusty decided Bellhorn was unacceptable at third base. Two other organizations have since reached the same conclusion.

I'm not sure his time with the Rockies is indicative of anything. And to claim that an organization with Youks and Mueller at 3B decided Bellhorn was unacceptable there is a bit disingenuous. Perhaps he's unacceptable at 2B, although even this year he'd be borderline acceptable offensively.

The end result of Dusty's hissy fit over Bellhorn was that the Cubs now have a much better third baseman. I wouldn't complain too much about it.

Well, the end result of the Bellhorn hissy fit was a trade for Jose Hernandez. Baker shouldn't get credit for Hendry building a bionic man at 3B after Baker ran a possibly acceptable incumbent over with a car.
   47. jolietconvict Posted: July 19, 2005 at 07:02 PM (#1483460)
It is interesting to "assess" Baker's eye on the various young players, tho. And he did eventually come around on Hendry's Dempster as closer idea.

Of course he only "came around" after LaTroy Hawkins failed in extermely spectacular fashion. It was the same thing with Dubois. Baker only let him start after Hollandsworth looked like he shouldn't have been playing in a 65+ slo-pitch league.
   48. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 07:21 PM (#1483506)
Of course he only "came around" after LaTroy Hawkins failed in extermely spectacular fashion.

Plenty of people though Hawkins could be a decent closer, and that 2004 was a fluke. Heck, plenty of people still think that.
   49. Slice Posted: July 19, 2005 at 07:40 PM (#1483547)
Alfred St. Vincent & the Grenadines (deJesusFreak) (#28)

Historical minor league stats - I use the baseball cube.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/

I think CBSSportsline has them too.
   50. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 07:51 PM (#1483579)
Historical minor league stats - I use the baseball cube.

Thanks, Slice -- I use it too. Unfortunately, it won't give me league stats, such as the top 10 ERAs in the Southern League for 2003.

At least, I can't find it in the Cube.
   51. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:07 PM (#1483631)
No one knows what Murton is yet.

You won't know after two months, either.
   52. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:11 PM (#1483646)
No one knows what Murton is yet.

You won't know after two months, either.


But you'll know a lot more than you will if he gets 12 starts against LHP and pinch hits every third game beyond that.
   53. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:18 PM (#1483673)
You won't know after two months, either.

Ok, so what do *you* think the Cubs should do? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing unless you have an opinion.
   54. Spahn Insane Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:38 PM (#1483743)
arguing for the sake of arguing

On Primer? Unheard of!
   55. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:42 PM (#1483755)
No it isn't.
   56. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:44 PM (#1483763)
Ok, so what do *you* think the Cubs should do? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing unless you have an opinion.

I never do that.

I don't know what the Cubs should do. What I'm saying is that if you're going to damn Baker for judging Holly after 148 ABs in 2004, you can't damn them for reluctance to draw conclusions on Murton after a two-month tryout. It's not consistent.

I will say that they should have just left Dubois out there if he was slugging .500 like I remember last I looked.
   57. Spahn Insane Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:44 PM (#1483764)
Shut your festering gob, you ###. Your type really makes me puke--you vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!!!
   58. Spahn Insane Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:45 PM (#1483769)
Oops..wrong thread. I'll take it to the "abuse for the sake of abuse" discussion...
   59. Urban Faber Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:46 PM (#1483770)
You're all wrong.
   60. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:53 PM (#1483797)
Oops..wrong thread. I'll take it to the "abuse for the sake of abuse" discussion...

I thought this was lessons in getting hit on the head.
   61. Bunny Vincennes Posted: July 19, 2005 at 08:54 PM (#1483801)
Ok, so what do *you* think the Cubs should do?

I'd start by finding someone who had a new manager.
   62. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:00 PM (#1483829)
I don't know what the Cubs should do. What I'm saying is that if you're going to damn Baker for judging Holly after 148 ABs in 2004, you can't damn them for reluctance to draw conclusions on Murton after a two-month tryout. It's not consistent.

And it is consistent. Baker is judging Holly on the basis of 148 ABs, while ignoring the previous 7-8 seasons of evidence that tend to show Hollandsworth basically has no value as a starter. That's the *definition* of relying on a small sample size -- Hollandsworth was mediocre to worse for about 8 years, but did well for 150 ABs. Thus, he's going to do well from now on. What?

Putting Murton in for two months tells you something -- it's two months' more evidence than you had before you did it. There's no giant lumbering elephant of mediocrity lurking behind him, waving its trunk around as a warning about sample size. If you have a young player with no experience, the only way to find out what he can do is to *give* him experience. Maybe two months isn't enough time to conclusively determine whether he'll be a Hall of Famer or a washout, but it's hard to get to three months or six months or however much time you think is required in this situation without giving him the first two months.

I hate this argument. Two months isn't enough to learn anything, so why bother? If you have some kind of newfangled time machine that lets you skip two months to get to a full season and a bigger sample, please send it to Wrigley Field, c/o Jim Hendry, 1060 West Addison, Chicago IL.
   63. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:01 PM (#1483835)
I'm wondering what Dr. Memory and Moses are arguing about. I think it all started with UCCF's comment that: "Dusty has steadfastly maintained since spring training that Hollandsworth is his guy and that the 148 ABs he got last year were enough to earn him a permanent place in the starting lineup."

I don't agree with this. IMO, Holly was Dusty's guy not only because of his 2003, but also because he has veteran status, certainly over the unknown Dubois. Dusty (and Hendry) have more than 148 ABs on which to judge Holly. They know what he is and also know he's not going to improve beyond this.

They don't know what Murton is capable of; only that he'll likely improve in the coming years.
   64. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:05 PM (#1483854)
Baker is judging Holly on the basis of 148 ABs, while ignoring the previous 7-8 seasons of evidence that tend to show Hollandsworth basically has no value as a starter.

I disagree with this. Dusty and the Cubs are not sticking their heads into the sand when it comes to Holly. They believe that Holly has shown that he's essentially an average OF who can go through stretches of relative brilliance (as in 2003).

More particularly, though I certainly don't want Holly to start and think he's ill-suited for that role in the long run, I don't think that he "basically has no value as a starter" and I certainly don't think the Cubs think that either.
   65. Spahn Insane Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:11 PM (#1483879)
I thought this was lessons in getting hit on the head.

What a styupid concept!
   66. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:34 PM (#1483956)
Dusty and the Cubs are not sticking their heads into the sand when it comes to Holly. They believe that Holly has shown that he's essentially an average OF who can go through stretches of relative brilliance (as in 2003).

Dusty was quoted in the paper repeatedly, back before Dubois ever got his shot, as saying that what Holly did in 2004 meant a lot in Dusty's decisionmaking process and couldn't be ignored, that his performance last year had earned him the starting spot. I never once heard him say anything even close to "he's an average player, but maybe he'll get hot this season."

Either Dusty thought that 2004 signaled some kind of corner turned for Holly (would be rare but not unheard of for a player to suddenly get better in his early 30s), or he was willing to overlook 1997-2003 and give undue weight to 2004 because he liked Holly as a player (and Holly was the vet that Dubois wasn't).

I guess the question is this: if Holly had hit .215 in 2004, would he have come into this season as the anointed starter? If yes, then the Cubs accept his limitations and just pray that he outplays them. If no, then the Cubs relied on a very small sample to make their decision.

Both are bad, but one is probably worse.
   67. Calvin Schiraldi Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:35 PM (#1483964)
As evidence I'd point to Bellhorn


So let me get this straight. It was wrong for the Cubs to enjoy Bellhorn's surprising 2002 season only to watch in horror as he was horrific in 2003, but it's OK for the Red Sox to enjoy Bellhorn's surprising resurgence in 2004 and then dump him this year (which they are about to do) when his 2005 is back to horrificness?
   68. Calvin Schiraldi Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:39 PM (#1483983)
It could be noted that Hollandsworth is excelling of late in his platoon role, he posted a .918 OPS in June and an .894 OPS in July.

I enjoy ragging on Dusty as much as anybody, but it's hard to find fault in this.
   69. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:43 PM (#1483993)
Sorry, UCCF. I'm really not trying to get your goat. I just think there's too much reflexive Dusty-bashing going on.

Murton isn't exactly a tabula rasa. You have his minor-league record as a fairly reliable guide. So, if Murton is tearing it up like Roger Freed in the minors, then sure, you've got the track record of a guy you could hand the job to and have some expectations that he'll hit at least like a league-average hitter.

But as long as we're talking about 8 years, Hollandsworth has 8 years of league-average hitting behind him. There are plenty of starting OF who don't do that. Hollandsworth is not anyone's idea of a long-term solution in LF, but he isn't killing them. (And if he were platooned with a decent right-handed hitter, we wouldn't be talking about him at all.)
   70. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:44 PM (#1483999)
I enjoy ragging on Dusty as much as anybody, but it's hard to find fault in this.

I'm thrilled with the results, but I'd much rather see a good decision making process and bad results than a bad process and good results, at least in the short term.
   71. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:45 PM (#1484003)
Dusty was quoted in the paper repeatedly, back before Dubois ever got his shot, as saying that what Holly did in 2004 meant a lot in Dusty's decisionmaking process and couldn't be ignored, that his performance last year had earned him the starting spot. I never once heard him say anything even close to "he's an average player, but maybe he'll get hot this season."

Sure. I think Dusty saw the choices as this:

1. A veteran journeyman, essentially league average but with a breakout 2004; or

2. An unknown rookie.

Based on the breakout and his sense of security in established players, I think Dusty was predisposed to giving Holly the start. I think it's far too simple to say that Dusty made this decision solely based on 2004; he obviously about Holly's past and certainly wasn't ignoring it (though he was clearly downplaying it based on 2004 success).

Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that Dusty or the Cubs thought that 1997-2003 was bad. You may think those years were awful or worthless, but I certainly don't think Dusty does.

I think Dusty looked at Holly as the starting LFer for much the same reasons as he thinks of Neifi as the starting SS -- i.e., it would be nice if the Cubs could go out and find a better option, but the guys they have are perfectly capable of starting in the meantime.
   72. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:46 PM (#1484005)
Dusty has always favored the known versus the unknown. Leo Durocher was always able to get guys who were already in the league to play BETTER. But Leo never put much faith in young players or tried them to solve a problem.

Baker is the exact same way. He has some serious voodoo when it comes to generating career years out of guys who are "just guys" or on their last legs (Ellis Burks/Marquis Grissom/Benito Santiago need I continue?) But put a young position player in front of him and his eyes glaze over. About the only two guys I can think of who got a shot with Dusty as position players are Aurilia and Marvin Benard. Certainly since he has come to the Cubs Patterson has received a fair shot. Beyond that Baker regards them as suspect.

Though I am not completely certain that this isn't a reflection of the quality of the players. I know I thought Choi would do something in the bigs and so far it hasn't been that pretty. Dubois wasn't very graceful in left field.

Maybe Baker sees the limitations quicker than we do.
   73. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:52 PM (#1484031)
I guess the question is this: if Holly had hit .215 in 2004, would he have come into this season as the anointed starter? If yes, then the Cubs accept his limitations and just pray that he outplays them. If no, then the Cubs relied on a very small sample to make their decision.

That's a false choice and you should know it. Holly had several years of being league average (as Dr. Memory points out). If he hit .215 in 2004, yes the Cubs would have probably dumped him -- not only because of the relative collapse, but also because of the season (and possibly career-threatening injury). For examples of guys who the Cubs made similar choices on, see guys like Troy O'Leary or even Lenny Harris.

OTOH, they kept him into 2004 -- not only because of his success in 2003, but because of several years of being league average. Most likely, Holly would regress to his established levels, but those would still make him a valuable bench player. Turns out that (a) they didn't count on undue loyalty by Dusty, (b) Dubois collapsed in June, and (c) Holly has played quite well over the last 6-8 weeks.
   74. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 09:57 PM (#1484053)
Murton isn't exactly a tabula rasa. You have his minor-league record as a fairly reliable guide. So, if Murton is tearing it up like Roger Freed in the minors, then sure, you've got the track record of a guy you could hand the job to and have some expectations that he'll hit at least like a league-average hitter.

The same thing could have been said about Dubois, who did put up a 1.000+ OPS in a full season at AAA in 2004, playing against both RHP and LHP. If that's not the track record of a guy who could get the job done, I'm not sure what is.

Beyond that, Hollandsworth's 8 years are actually 5 half seasons where he got less than 300 ABs each year, and 3 more-or-less full seasons. In the full seasons, he put up OPS+ of 114 (his ROTY year), 97, and 91. So you've got a guy who, when he does start, is basically slightly below average. If you credit him with the glove, maybe he's an average player. Maybe.

The problem I have is in just handing the job to an average player who hasn't started regularly in 3 seasons when you've got younger players with minor league track records coming up the pike. Your choices are:

(a) Play Holly, bench Dubois (now Murton). After the season, you're back to the FA market trying to find another OF.
(b) Play Dubois/Murton, bench Holly. Dubois/Murton stink up the joint. Back to the FA market.
(c) Play Dubois/Murton, bench Holly. Dubois/Murton put up a league average season, probably the same as you could have expected from Holly. Now maybe you don't need an FA -- young batters can be expected to develop, and a guy who hits at an average level as a rookie may get better and better as he goes along. (Or he may not, in which case you're back to the FA market again in the future.)

The point is, Hollandsworth is the safe choice -- he'll give you a 95 OPS+ and decent defense, and you'll know that after the season you'll have to try to find someone again (like they were unable to do last year, though Hendry seemed sold on Dubois getting a full-time starting job, so it may be that he wasn't looking as hard as he otherwise might have).

If you play a rookie, there's a chance he stinks. But there's also a chance that you've found a cheap starter who could be very good someday, freeing you up to fill in the gaps elsewhere. And let's face it, the Cubs have a lot of gaps and a finite amount of money to fill them.

If they'd played Dubois this year and he put up an .825 OPS, it would be one less thing for them to worry about in the offseason. That's the cost of playing Hollandsworth.

(And I could make the same arguments about Neifi Perez vs Ronny Cedeno. Playing the known quantity over the unproven rookie -- where the known quantity is nothing more than an average to below average player at best -- is just a killer for your organization. If you're going to develop these guys who are hitting .380 or slugging .630 at AAA but refuse to use them in favor of some middling fungible veterans, then you might as well close up your minor leagues and go home.)
   75. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 10:05 PM (#1484073)
I agree with UCCF's policies in Post #74. I think most of us do. I just take issue with his assertion that Dusty's only reason for starting Holly this season was his success in 2004.
   76. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 10:12 PM (#1484094)
OTOH, they kept him into 2004 -- not only because of his success in 2003, but because of several years of being league average. Most likely, Holly would regress to his established levels, but those would still make him a valuable bench player. Turns out that (a) they didn't count on undue loyalty by Dusty, (b) Dubois collapsed in June, and (c) Holly has played quite well over the last 6-8 weeks.

I'm not arguing that Hollandsworth should have been cut. He would make a fine bench addition, a guy who seems comfortable pinch hitting and someone with decent speed and defensive ability to fill in in the late innings as needed.

My argument is that handing someone like that the starting job right off the bat is just foolish. You have an unknown rookie who could be better (or worse), and you have an average veteran. There's nothing at all to be gained by benching the rookie in that situation without at least giving him an opportunity to prove his worth.

What do the Cubs do for next season now? Bring back Hollandsworth for another run at mediocrity? Give the job to Murton without knowing what he's capable of? Give it to another rookie? Give it to Gerut? Or sign a FA (or make a trade)?

These are questions that possibly could have been answered if Dubois (and now Murton) were given a chance to play.

I'm sorry (and I'm pretty much done arguing this, because I think we're saying the same things over and over), but I'll never agree that running a veteran player with a track record of mediocrity out there as a starter is a defensible decision when one of the other options is a rookie who tore it up at AAA. If you don't at least give the rookie a couple of months playing *full* time in that situation, then you're just harming the organization in the longterm. Dusty would love to turn the Cubs into the Giants that he managed -- lots of vets, no place for rookies. But without Barry Bonds, that strategy wouldn't have worked in SF, and it's not going to work here, not when you're giving 4 ABs a day to proven mediocrities like Hollandsworth and Neifi Perez.

The Braves and the Yankees sustained longterm success by growing from within their system. Could you imagine where the Yankees would be now if they'd let Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, Jeter, and Williams languish on the bench for a few seasons before shipping them away? Or the Braves with Jones and Jones and Furcal and Glavine? As an organization, the surest way to achieve long-term success is to develop a core of young talent and fill in the pieces around it. But you'll never know if you have any young talent if your manager stuffs it to the end of the bench in favor of a career part-timer.
   77. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 19, 2005 at 10:30 PM (#1484158)
My argument is that handing someone like that the starting job right off the bat is just foolish.

We agree (and I think Dr. Memory does as well). I'm absolutely with you on Posts 74 and 76. I just disagreed that Dusty made his ill-informed choice based solely on Holly's 2004.
   78. Mick Kelleher's Home Run Posted: July 19, 2005 at 10:45 PM (#1484222)
my first thought was that Cubs may regret losing Dubois, but i said the same thing about Ruben Quevedo.

Too bad Harry Caray's not around to make up a "Jody... Jody Gerut" song.

Wassup w/Gerut's loss of power?
2003 ISOP .215
2004 ISOP .153
2005 ISOP .102 ( 1 bomb in 138 AB's?!)
   79. Urban Faber Posted: July 19, 2005 at 11:23 PM (#1484373)
Recovering from torn ACL, though I'm not sure why the loss of power.
   80. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 19, 2005 at 11:27 PM (#1484387)
He has some serious voodoo when it comes to generating career years out of guys who are "just guys" or on their last legs (Ellis Burks/Marquis Grissom/Benito Santiago need I continue?)

During the Cardinals' recent road trip somebody suggested that San Francisco's climate may be playing a role in Mike Matheny's (relatively) big season. I wonder if that was the real source of Dusty's voodoo.
   81. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: July 19, 2005 at 11:52 PM (#1484463)
I think selective sampling is at play in the Dusty's Great with veterans. It's not a skill, it's just a case in which his failures don't get enough ABs to qualify for the study. Given his veteran fetish, it makes sense that he'd be seen as good at coaxing good seasons from them.

Alou's been a godsend in SF. In the last few years, he's coaxed disproportionately good performances from Snow, Grissom, Durham, Deivi Cruz, Mohr, Feliz, Benito, Galaragga,Jeffrey Hammonds and now Mike Matheny. That guy is a magician.
   82. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: July 20, 2005 at 12:17 AM (#1484534)
I do not think Dusty has anything to do with veteran success in San Francisco. As TRHN points out, it's continued since he left. This year alone Alou, Vizquel and Matheny are outperforming Primate expectations. I think the man responsible is likely Sabean showing a good eye in selecting the players.
   83. Greasy Neale Heaton (Dan Lee) Posted: July 20, 2005 at 12:50 AM (#1484634)
Wassup w/Gerut's loss of power?

2003 was a total fluke, and his knee may not be totally back this year.

He's always been a doubles power guy...that home run surge two years ago came totally out of nowhere.
   84. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: July 20, 2005 at 12:50 AM (#1484635)
Bull. Because Baker has done the same thing in Chicago. Burnitz has FAR exceeded anyone's expectations. Alou pretty much had a career season last year. Eric Karros last gasp was with Dusty. And does anyone think that Aramis would be playing at this level in Pittsburgh? Sure, and President Bush spends his evenings studying Thucydides in its original Attic Greek.

Look, razz the man all you want. But he DOES have value as a manager. And taking known quantities and having them play BETTER is that value.
   85. Mister High Standards Posted: July 20, 2005 at 01:40 AM (#1484814)
I'm thrilled with the results, but I'd much rather see a good decision making process and bad results than a bad process and good results, at least in the short term.

While I agree with the statement I would like to point out that I'm not convinced that UCCF is qualified to judge which is which in this specific case.
   86. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 20, 2005 at 01:41 AM (#1484825)
Alou pretty much had a career season last year.

Last season he posted an EQA of .299, he's had five seasons over .300 in his career. This season, he's besting that 2004 EQA by .015.

But he DOES have value as a manager. And taking known quantities and having them play BETTER is that value.

I wouldn't argue with this. The issue is whether these good attributes outweigh the bad WRT the Chicago Cubs and their needs.
   87. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 20, 2005 at 02:10 AM (#1484947)
Burnitz has FAR exceeded anyone's expectations.

Don't know if I'd capitalize "far":

PECOTA: 253/328/480
Actual: 256/350/490
   88. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 20, 2005 at 02:12 AM (#1484955)
While I agree with the statement I would like to point out that I'm not convinced that UCCF is qualified to judge which is which in this specific case.

If we're going to be snarky, then I'll say that I'm not convinced you're qualified to judge UCCF.
   89. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 20, 2005 at 04:08 AM (#1485273)
If we're going to be snarky, then I'll say that I'm not convinced you're qualified to judge UCCF.

That's right. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Or something like that.

And if what you're looking for is an opinion from a GM or former GM or other highly placed baseball executive on all of this, then I'm pretty sure that no more than a handful of people who ever visit this site would be qualified enough to render any opinion on anything.

I have a hard time seeing the "let's play retread veterans while our position prospects rot on the bench" school of management as the good decision making process, regardless of how it works out. What percentage of eventual All-stars begin their career as role players, pinch hitters, and defensive substitutions?
   90. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: July 20, 2005 at 04:20 AM (#1485287)
Bull. Because Baker has done the same thing in Chicago. Burnitz has FAR exceeded anyone's expectations. Alou pretty much had a career season last year. Eric Karros last gasp was with Dusty.

Um...Alou is playing better this year than last year and Dusty was his manager in 2003. Burnitz played better last year than this year. Karros' 2003 was basically indistinguishable from his 2002, except he probably faced disproportionately more LHP.

Grudzielanek is the only old player who's performed better under Baker.
   91. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: July 20, 2005 at 05:02 AM (#1485314)
About the only two guys I can think of who got a shot with Dusty as position players are Aurilia and Marvin Benard.

Aurilia didn't get 500 AB in the majors until he was 27. Benard didn't get 500 AB until he was 29 (488 at 26, though). Also, Bill Mueller got his first 500 AB season at the age of 27.

So yes, Dusty gave a shot to some players who weren't MLB veterans, but they weren't young.
   92. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 20, 2005 at 06:00 AM (#1485345)
I have a hard time seeing the "let's play retread veterans while our position prospects rot on the bench" school of management as the good decision making process, regardless of how it works out.

I don't advocate it either, but it seems to have worked for the Yankees since about '98 or so. A very costly and risky way to run an organization, to be sure.

Grudzielanek is the only old player who's performed better under Baker.

I'll say this in Dusty's defense: Nearly all the veteran position players are playing above PECOTA predictions:

Burnitz -- somewhere in the 60-75th percentile
Perez -- around the 75th percentile
Lee -- way above the 90th percentile
Ramirez -- somewhere in the 75-90th percentile
Barrett -- around the 75th percentile
Hollandsworth -- somewhere in the 40-50th percentile
Walker -- around the 90th percentile

Yes, he's not developing the future of the franchise, but he is getting better than expected production from the vets.
   93. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: July 20, 2005 at 06:06 AM (#1485352)
Why is that due to Dusty?

Also, I don't have BPro access anymore, but see where other teams lie on that scale. More people play above the 90th percentile than you'd expect.
   94. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 20, 2005 at 03:25 PM (#1485730)
Why isn't it, at least in part? Let me take another team, say the Reds --

Dunn -- somewhere in the 25-40th percentile
Kearns -- below the 10th percentile
Pena -- around 40th percentile
Casey -- around 50th percentile (BA and OBP over, SLG significantly below)
Griffey -- around 75th percentile
LaRue -- around 60th percentile
Randa -- around 90th percentile
Aurelia -- somewhere in the 60-70th percentile
Lopez -- over 90th percentile
Freel -- somewhere in the 75-90th percentile

Maybe you're right, Thomas, but there are a lot more significant misses on the Reds list (Dunn, Kearns, Pena) than on the Cubs (Patterson, Hollandsworth -- who's been much better over the last month).
   95. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 20, 2005 at 03:30 PM (#1485748)
I don't advocate it either, but it seems to have worked for the Yankees since about '98 or so. A very costly and risky way to run an organization, to be sure.

If I thought the Cubs were willing to run their payroll into the $140-150M range, I'd stop complaining about the veterans. But it'll never happen.
   96. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: July 20, 2005 at 03:45 PM (#1485791)
I'm actually to the point where I can live with Holly. After all, he's only platooning and at least he's hitting well (and so is Murton). So long as they don't see this as the future of the franchise -- or plan to cut Murton loose because "he can't hit RHPs," I can live with the platoon.

It's the Neifi situation that really bothers me, though. They bring up Cedeno much sooner than planned, then don't platoon him but stick him at the end of the bench. Realizing he needs to play, they go out and get Enrique Wilson -- solely so they can move Cedeno to Iowa. A month later, they decide to get rid of Wilson and recall Cedeno.

Does this mean that they are going to play him? Platoon him? No. He's stuck at the end of the bench again.

I guess what really ticks me off isn't that he's idle; it's the fact that the Cubs know he needs to play and still don't do it.
   97. zonk Posted: July 20, 2005 at 06:17 PM (#1486235)
What am I missing about Dubois? K's a Bellhornian amount without the walks. Isn't good defensively. Gerut is a year older, but appears to be a better all around player. Of course, he doesn't have Custian potential.

That makes 2 of us -- I'd have preferred to see a solid 2 months of everyday AB's from Dubois to see what he could do -- but I always thought he was bound to be more Rosey Brown than Brian Giles (not that anyone here ever claimed Dubois would be anything approaching Giles-esque.... but he was the first "late-bloomer finally getting a chance to play every day" I could think of).

My argument here was that the '05 Cubs were legitmately thought to be contenders, and as such, I didn't have as much of a problem with Baker sticking with a known mediocrity over an unproven who-knows. In the case of Rosey Brown - I thought the Cubs were in a position where nothing would have been lost by letting Brown have the job.

Also...

Someone upthread compared Baker to Durocher - I never thought of that before, but that actually sounds about right.
   98. Artie Ziff Posted: July 20, 2005 at 07:27 PM (#1486465)
While I agree that Cubs fans come a dime a dozen, but for a trade involving two outfielders that many here have never heard of or seen play, there are a lot of posts on this board discussing it.
   99. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: July 20, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1486473)
While I agree that Cubs fans come a dime a dozen, but for a trade involving two outfielders that many here have never heard of or seen play, there are a lot of posts on this board discussing it.

Given that this is a fanatical baseball site, I very much doubt that "many" here had never heard of either Dubois or Gerut before this trade.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5985 seconds
66 querie(s) executed