Login

***Butcher*** · 08-10-2009, 01:42 PM

QUOTE (rok @ Aug 10 2009, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Aug 10 2009, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE - trading DeRosa for three low-impact minor league pitchers who aren't going to help the team this season (whether they'll ever help the team remains to be seen)
Jeff Stevens has been pretty fucking good in the pen.
</div>
Yeah. That 7.36 ERA in 7.1 IP has been fucking phenomenal.
</div>
He was solid until the weekend. I think the jury is still out on him, but if he doesn't figure things out soon, he's going to become a pretty old prospect really quickly.
</div>
I'm not saying he won't ever amount to anything. I am saying that he isn't likely to make much of an impact in the immediate future.

veryzer · 08-10-2009, 01:43 PM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 10:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>There were a lot of stupid things about the DeRosa trade.

- handing Fontenot the starting 2B job over DeRosa, apparently because of Fontenot's handedness. This also ensured we have two hobbits up the middle on defense.

- signing a fragile Bradley made DeRosa MORE valuable to the team -- not more expendable

- trading DeRosa for three low-impact minor league pitchers who aren't going to help the team this season (whether they'll ever help the team remains to be seen)

- to be fair to Hendry, he couldn't possibly have predicted DeRosa would end up playing a huge role for the Cardinals -- a team currently two games ahead of us in the standings. But, man, it really stings.

- the Miles signing was retarded on its own merits. You don't give a guy like Miles a two year five million dollar contract when you can pick up the exact same player off the scrap heap or from your minor league system for the league minimum.

and though i defend the derosa trade, i agree with most of this. if fontenot would have played even remotely like he did last year, this wouldn't have been as big a deal.

ironically, bradley has been pretty durable this year. derosa would have gotten little time in the outfield.

BT · 08-10-2009, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Aug 10 2009, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE - trading DeRosa for three low-impact minor league pitchers who aren't going to help the team this season (whether they'll ever help the team remains to be seen)
Jeff Stevens has been pretty fucking good in the pen.
</div>
Yeah. That 7.36 ERA in 7.1 IP has been fucking phenomenal.
</div>

Coming from the guy who is saying that DeRosa and his .222 avg and .276 OBP has saved the Cardinals? Stats aren't always your friend.

Up until yesterday, Stevens WAS really good in the pen.

BT · 08-10-2009, 01:55 PM

QUOTE - handing Fontenot the starting 2B job over DeRosa, apparently because of Fontenot's handedness. This also ensured we have two hobbits up the middle on defense.

Fontenot was handed the job because he was younger than DeRosa, had an OPS over .900 last year, was cheaper, AND was left handed. Also, DeRosa isn't any better of a fielder than Fontenot.

QUOTE - signing a fragile Bradley made DeRosa MORE valuable to the team -- not more expendable

Bradley's problem has not been his fragility, but rather his ability, so if Hendry took a gamble on DeRosa's expandability in that regard, it appears to have worked out.

QUOTE - trading DeRosa for three low-impact minor league pitchers who aren't going to help the team this season (whether they'll ever help the team remains to be seen)

All 3 guys we traded for appear to be more valuable now than when we got them. And if you are unhappy with what Hendry came away with, perhaps that is more of an indicator of how the rest of the major leagues felt about DeRosa, than about Hendry's ability to make a good deal.

QUOTE - the Miles signing was retarded on its own merits. You don't give a guy like Miles a two year five million dollar contract when you can pick up the exact same player off the scrap heap or from your minor league system for the league minimum.

OK, that one I agree with 100 percent.

***rok*** · 08-10-2009, 02:01 PM

Yep, the Miles portion of the equation is the main issue that I have with Hendry's thought process last offseason. Even 1 year might have been justifiable, but I didn't want him from the start, and not at that price when we, like on so many other occasions in recent history, seemed to have bid against ourselves.

It's too bad that we didn't focus on upgrading at SS, and just moved Theriot and Fontenot into a platoon at 2B. I know it was a longshot idea, but it made a lot of sense for us. And I'm not even talking hindsight. Theriot has shown time and time again that he is a well below average SS.

***Butcher*** · 08-10-2009, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Aug 10 2009, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Aug 10 2009, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE - trading DeRosa for three low-impact minor league pitchers who aren't going to help the team this season (whether they'll ever help the team remains to be seen)
Jeff Stevens has been pretty fucking good in the pen.
</div>
Yeah. That 7.36 ERA in 7.1 IP has been fucking phenomenal.
</div>

Coming from the guy who is saying that DeRosa and his .222 avg and .276 OBP has saved the Cardinals? Stats aren't always your friend.

Up until yesterday, Stevens WAS really good in the pen.
</div>
Convenient that you left out his .500 SLG and 8 HR. Stats can be your friend if you use them correctly. And if you think DeRosa is going to continue hitting .222 with the Cards, well...you're probably wrong.

My point with Stevens wasn't that he has sucked with the Cubs -- it's that it's too early to tell (7.1 IP). And that he's unlikely to make much of an impact anytime soon.

The Dude · 08-10-2009, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Aug 10 2009, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Bradley's problem has not been his fragility, but rather his ability, so if Hendry took a gamble on DeRosa's expandability in that regard, it appears to have worked out.

I'm interested in learning more about DeRosa's expandibility....

kbwsb · 08-10-2009, 02:58 PM

QUOTE (The Dude @ Aug 10 2009, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 10:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You don't give a guy like Miles a two year five million dollar contract when you can pick up the exact same player off the scrap heap or from your minor league system for the league minimum.

This seems to be Hendry's trademark move. Neif, Jock, Rusch, etc.... He loves overpaying for marginal players.
</div>
And The Dude wins for quote of the decade.
Jim has never figured out simple math: if you overpay for one guy, you have less money left over for those other guys you need.

BT · 08-10-2009, 03:57 PM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Aug 10 2009, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Aug 10 2009, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE - trading DeRosa for three low-impact minor league pitchers who aren't going to help the team this season (whether they'll ever help the team remains to be seen)
Jeff Stevens has been pretty fucking good in the pen.
</div>
Yeah. That 7.36 ERA in 7.1 IP has been fucking phenomenal.
</div>

Coming from the guy who is saying that DeRosa and his .222 avg and .276 OBP has saved the Cardinals? Stats aren't always your friend.

Up until yesterday, Stevens WAS really good in the pen.
</div>
Convenient that you left out his .500 SLG and 8 HR. Stats can be your friend if you use them correctly. And if you think DeRosa is going to continue hitting .222 with the Cards, well...you're probably wrong.

My point with Stevens wasn't that he has sucked with the Cubs -- it's that it's too early to tell (7.1 IP). And that he's unlikely to make much of an impact anytime soon.
</div>

aaaaaand you miss my point. Bringing up Stevens ERA the day after he gets lit up in Colorado is no more fair than leaving out DeRosa's slugging percentage. He had a 2.84 ERA on Saturday. Does that tell us anything about him? Probably not.

to put it another way, Stevens has been very effective in 4 out of his 6 outings, so your usage of his ERA to refute PCB is kind of bullshitty. Just like you, I can find stats that refute your position, but don't necessarily tell the whole story.

I also find it interesting that it's simply madness to think DeRosa will hit .222 the rest of the way, but we are all supposed to take it on faith that he will no doubt slug .500 and stay on a pace to hit 54 home runs over the course of a full year.

***rok*** · 08-10-2009, 04:02 PM

HRs aside, DeRosa is having kind of a mediocre season (BA and OBP are way down from the past few seasons). I'm not sure how much of that is related to the fact that he changed teams twice, but it will be interesting to see how he finishes the year. At the same time, Bradley will struggle to get anywhere near 21HR/63RBI for the full season, so there's that.

***Butcher*** · 08-10-2009, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Aug 10 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Aug 10 2009, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Aug 10 2009, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE - trading DeRosa for three low-impact minor league pitchers who aren't going to help the team this season (whether they'll ever help the team remains to be seen)
Jeff Stevens has been pretty fucking good in the pen.
</div>
Yeah. That 7.36 ERA in 7.1 IP has been fucking phenomenal.
</div>

Coming from the guy who is saying that DeRosa and his .222 avg and .276 OBP has saved the Cardinals? Stats aren't always your friend.

Up until yesterday, Stevens WAS really good in the pen.
</div>
Convenient that you left out his .500 SLG and 8 HR. Stats can be your friend if you use them correctly. And if you think DeRosa is going to continue hitting .222 with the Cards, well...you're probably wrong.

My point with Stevens wasn't that he has sucked with the Cubs -- it's that it's too early to tell (7.1 IP). And that he's unlikely to make much of an impact anytime soon.
</div>

aaaaaand you miss my point. Bringing up Stevens ERA the day after he gets lit up in Colorado is no more fair than leaving out DeRosa's slugging percentage. He had a 2.84 ERA on Saturday. Does that tell us anything about him? Probably not.

to put it another way, Stevens has been very effective in 4 out of his 6 outings, so your usage of his ERA to refute PCB is kind of bullshitty. Just like you, I can find stats that refute your position, but don't necessarily tell the whole story.

I also find it interesting that it's simply madness to think DeRosa will hit .222 the rest of the way, but we are all supposed to take it on faith that he will no doubt slug .500 and stay on a pace to hit 54 home runs over the course of a full year.
</div>
- I don't care of Stevens' ERA was 0.00 in 7.1 innings or 99.99 in 7.1 innings. My point (which you aren't really addressing) remains. He isn't going to make much of an impact on this team this season. And certainly not the impact keeping DeRosa would have made -- not even close. Let me re-quote my original statement: "trading DeRosa for three low-impact minor league pitchers who aren't going to help the team this season (whether they'll ever help the team remains to be seen)..."

- I never said DeRosa will continue his current home run pace. But your post would lead us to believe that DeRosa hasn't done jack shit for the Cardinals. I'm simply pointing out that by leaving out his SLG and home run numbers, it looks like he hasn't contributed. And he has. I expect his AVG and OBP will rise and his SLG will drop. In the end, his stats will look a helluva lot better than Fontenot's. Of that, I am 100% certain.

***Butcher*** · 08-10-2009, 04:11 PM

QUOTE (rok @ Aug 10 2009, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>HRs aside, DeRosa is having kind of a mediocre season (BA and OBP are way down from the past few seasons). I'm not sure how much of that is related to the fact that he changed teams twice, but it will be interesting to see how he finishes the year. At the same time, Bradley will struggle to get anywhere near 21HR/63RBI for the full season, so there's that.
As of right now DeRosa is leading the combination of Bradley and Fontenot in homers (21 to 17) and tied in RBIs (63).

BT · 08-10-2009, 05:05 PM

Butch, PCB said Stevens had been good in the pen. You used a BS statistic to disprove that. Stevens HAS been effective, except his outing yesterday skewed his ERA. I showed you how I could also use a BS statistic to disprove one of your holy tenets. DeRosa has been more effective than a .222 average and a .276 OBP would indicate.

Although I will admit that you motherfuckers sure piss and moan a lot about losing a guy with a sub .800 OPS this year.

***Butcher*** · 08-10-2009, 05:18 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Aug 10 2009, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Butch, PCB said Stevens had been good in the pen. You used a BS statistic to disprove that. Stevens HAS been effective, except his outing yesterday skewed his ERA. I showed you how I could also use a BS statistic to disprove one of your holy tenets. DeRosa has been more effective than a .222 average and a .276 OBP would indicate.

Although I will admit that you motherfuckers sure piss and moan a lot about losing a guy with a sub .800 OPS this year.
The point is, regardless of how well he has pitched, is that he's pitched 7 innings -- certainly not enough to determine how awesome he's going to be. And again, I don't see him making much of an impact on the 2009 Chicago Cubs. As an aside (but pretty relevant to my point), Stevens will be 26 next month. That's pretty fucking old for a prospect.

How about this, BT? Instead of arguing around the perimeter of this discussion, let me ask you two questions, because I'm curious.

Did you like the DeRosa trade when Hendry made it?

Do you like the DeRosa trade now?

biggz · 08-10-2009, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 10 2009, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Did you like the DeRosa trade when Hendry made it? <b>No</b>

Do you like the DeRosa trade now? <b>Yes</b>

Yes to the second question, because Bradley has been surprisingly healthy. Shame Font can't put it together though.

I hope I never hear about the DeRosa trade after this year, or I'm going on a killing spree.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me