Sheets

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=76839:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This is sort of tangential, but Sheets wouldn't fill a hole in the #5 spot -- he'd fill a hole in the #1 spot. Because, really, we have:

1. ___________
2. Lilly (hurt -- who knows when he'll be healthy/effective)
3. Zambrano
4. Dempster
5. Wells (career year as a rookie?)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, it's possible he could turn out to be the ace of the staff. But I would say it's at least as likely that, after not pitching for a full year, he could either be terrible, or he could just keep getting hurt like he has his entire career. So there's no way you could sign him and just think he's going to be the ace.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=76839:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->3. Zambrano<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wtf?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=76843:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:04 PM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Jan 21 2010, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76839:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This is sort of tangential, but Sheets wouldn't fill a hole in the #5 spot -- he'd fill a hole in the #1 spot. Because, really, we have:

1. ___________
2. Lilly (hurt -- who knows when he'll be healthy/effective)
3. Zambrano
4. Dempster
5. Wells (career year as a rookie?)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, it's possible he could turn out to be the ace of the staff. But I would say it's at least as likely that, after not pitching for a full year, he could either be terrible, or he could just keep getting hurt like he has his entire career. So there's no way you could sign him and just think he's going to be the ace.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. He could. Unfortunately, you clipped the rest of my quote, where I said this:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Of course Sheets is a gamble, but if effective/healthy, he would make us a playoff contender. Adding a 4th OF and another reliever isn't going to do that -- even if they're the best 4th OF and 7th/8th inning guys in the history of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I would be quick to point out that Grabow/Calero/Reed Johnson over Gaub/Parker/Fuld is just as much a luxury.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I would like to point out that you are completely wrong.

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=76846:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:25 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76843:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:04 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jan 21 2010, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76839:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This is sort of tangential, but Sheets wouldn't fill a hole in the #5 spot -- he'd fill a hole in the #1 spot. Because, really, we have:

1. ___________
2. Lilly (hurt -- who knows when he'll be healthy/effective)
3. Zambrano
4. Dempster
5. Wells (career year as a rookie?)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, it's possible he could turn out to be the ace of the staff. But I would say it's at least as likely that, after not pitching for a full year, he could either be terrible, or he could just keep getting hurt like he has his entire career. So there's no way you could sign him and just think he's going to be the ace.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. He could. Unfortunately, you clipped the rest of my quote, where I said this:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Of course Sheets is a gamble, but if effective/healthy, he would make us a playoff contender. Adding a 4th OF and another reliever isn't going to do that -- even if they're the best 4th OF and 7th/8th inning guys in the history of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I missed the last paragraph. Still, I think a fourth outfielder especially is extremely important for this team. Right now there's zero depth in the outfield, and we're relying on a guy who hasn't had much success outside of Texas and a guy that was one of the worst full time players in the big leagues for the last few months of the season and seems to be an injury risk now. I think a fourth outfielder could have a ton of say on what happens with this team, as weird as that sounds.

Plus, I'm just not sure I see the huge upside to Ben Sheets. Every time I think about him, I remember how much of a gigantic pussy he used to be. I'll never forget, he was pitching the biggest game of his life, a Sunday night game in Wrigley, and he pulled himself after 2 innings. I'm not sure that's a guy this team really needs.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=76851:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:36 PM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Jan 21 2010, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76846:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:25 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76843:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:04 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jan 21 2010, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76839:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This is sort of tangential, but Sheets wouldn't fill a hole in the #5 spot -- he'd fill a hole in the #1 spot. Because, really, we have:

1. ___________
2. Lilly (hurt -- who knows when he'll be healthy/effective)
3. Zambrano
4. Dempster
5. Wells (career year as a rookie?)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, it's possible he could turn out to be the ace of the staff. But I would say it's at least as likely that, after not pitching for a full year, he could either be terrible, or he could just keep getting hurt like he has his entire career. So there's no way you could sign him and just think he's going to be the ace.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. He could. Unfortunately, you clipped the rest of my quote, where I said this:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Of course Sheets is a gamble, but if effective/healthy, he would make us a playoff contender. Adding a 4th OF and another reliever isn't going to do that -- even if they're the best 4th OF and 7th/8th inning guys in the history of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I missed the last paragraph. Still, I think a fourth outfielder especially is extremely important for this team. Right now there's zero depth in the outfield, and we're relying on a guy who hasn't had much success outside of Texas and a guy that was one of the worst full time players in the big leagues for the last few months of the season and seems to be an injury risk now. I think a fourth outfielder could have a ton of say on what happens with this team, as weird as that sounds.

Plus, I'm just not sure I see the huge upside to Ben Sheets. Every time I think about him, I remember how much of a gigantic pussy he used to be. I'll never forget, he was pitching the biggest game of his life, a Sunday night game in Wrigley, and he pulled himself after 2 innings. I'm not sure that's a guy this team really needs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess this discussion depends on whether you think this team has enough talent to compete with the Cardinals (I don't think they do). A good 4th OF will add needed depth for sure, but I don't think it's the difference between winning the division or not. A healthy Sheets and an upgraded rotation *could* be, though.

[rok]

Is it unrealistic to believe that a bunch of Cards players not named Pujols will revert to their mean career numbers next season? I think their rotation aside from Wainwright and a still fragile Carp is kind of overrated. They have Lohse too, but I'm unimpressed with their back end. Their bullpen? Aside from Franklin, it isn't better than ours. Their lineup, at least their 2-5 hitters should do plenty of damage, but I don't see them as dominant 1-8. I'm not saying that we are any better, but it isn't impossible to envision an actual race in the Central.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=76860:date=Jan 21 2010, 04:04 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Is it unrealistic to believe that a bunch of Cards players not named Pujols will revert to their mean career numbers next season? I think their rotation aside from Wainwright and a still fragile Carp is nothing kind of overrated. They have Lohse too, but I'm unimpressed with their back end. Their bullpen? Aside from Franklin, it isn't better than ours. Their lineup, at least their 2-5 hitters should do plenty of damage, but I don't see them as dominant 1-8. I'm not saying that we are any better, but it isn't impossible to envision an actual race in the Central.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't start giving me hope, rok. Don't do it.

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=76855:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:56 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76851:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:36 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jan 21 2010, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76846:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:25 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76843:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:04 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jan 21 2010, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76839:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 21 2010, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This is sort of tangential, but Sheets wouldn't fill a hole in the #5 spot -- he'd fill a hole in the #1 spot. Because, really, we have:

1. ___________
2. Lilly (hurt -- who knows when he'll be healthy/effective)
3. Zambrano
4. Dempster
5. Wells (career year as a rookie?)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, it's possible he could turn out to be the ace of the staff. But I would say it's at least as likely that, after not pitching for a full year, he could either be terrible, or he could just keep getting hurt like he has his entire career. So there's no way you could sign him and just think he's going to be the ace.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. He could. Unfortunately, you clipped the rest of my quote, where I said this:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Of course Sheets is a gamble, but if effective/healthy, he would make us a playoff contender. Adding a 4th OF and another reliever isn't going to do that -- even if they're the best 4th OF and 7th/8th inning guys in the history of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I missed the last paragraph. Still, I think a fourth outfielder especially is extremely important for this team. Right now there's zero depth in the outfield, and we're relying on a guy who hasn't had much success outside of Texas and a guy that was one of the worst full time players in the big leagues for the last few months of the season and seems to be an injury risk now. I think a fourth outfielder could have a ton of say on what happens with this team, as weird as that sounds.

Plus, I'm just not sure I see the huge upside to Ben Sheets. Every time I think about him, I remember how much of a gigantic pussy he used to be. I'll never forget, he was pitching the biggest game of his life, a Sunday night game in Wrigley, and he pulled himself after 2 innings. I'm not sure that's a guy this team really needs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess this discussion depends on whether you think this team has enough talent to compete with the Cardinals (I don't think they do). A good 4th OF will add needed depth for sure, but I don't think it's the difference between winning the division or not. A healthy Sheets and an upgraded rotation *could* be, though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough. I think this team is plenty capable of being a serious playoff contender if things go right.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=76838:date=Jan 21 2010, 04:29 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2010, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76831:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:01 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jan 21 2010, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76827:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:21 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2010, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76819:date=Jan 21 2010, 12:53 PM:name=The Dude)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Dude @ Jan 21 2010, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'd love to have Sheets. To all those that say the Grabow signing doesn't keep us from doing other things, I'd say that a few million extra is all we'd need in the budget to afford Sheets. Would you rather have a potential ace or an average lefty reliever?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


There is a very good chance that the reason we don't sign Sheets is because it's not a priority, not because we blew 3 million on Grabow. The Cubs have 4 rotation spots locked up. They have a plethora of candidates for the #5 spot. While I would love to have Sheets, he would be a luxury. And while I can't prove it, I am almost positive that the roadblock to signing him is NOT 3 million dollars.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


What's interesting though is that Hendry is planning on SIGNING a bench bat and SIGNING another reliever. I don't know how much Sheets will end up signing for and I don't know how much those two signings will cost the Cubs, but I have to think that the two relievers and bench spot could be adequately occupied by low-cost players within the organization there by leaving a cache of monies to be put towards the better part of a possible Sheets offer. And while you may feel that the Cubs may feel that Sheets over Silva/Gorzo/Samardzija is a luxury, I would be quick to point out that Grabow/Calero/Reed Johnson over Gaub/Parker/Fuld is just as much a luxury.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

no, it's not.

First of all, we KNOW Marshall and Gorzelany can start. At their worst, they can be 5th starters. And they are filling in one spot on the roster, the 5th stater spot. So spending money on Sheets would simply be spending money on a risky player who MAY be and upgrade, but we don't have any idea how much of one.

Your second scenario is putting 3 completely unproven players, covering 3 roster spots. We NEED a left handed reliever. We NEED a setup man. We NEED a fourth outfielder. To trust 3 entire spots to guys whom we have no idea if they can handle those spots, is no where near the same gamble as finding ONE guy who can take the 5th starter spot. A spot that literally has 5 or 6 candidates, at the minimum, who can fill in if the other guys falter. Gaub/Parker/Fuld MIGHT be able to handle those spots effectively, but we certainly don't have multiple backups in place in case they falter (with the possible exception of Parker).

How many times do we have to go over the fact that the left handed reliever spot COULD NOT be adequately handled by some cheap, in house option when we needed it last year? What in house option would you be comfortable inserting as our 4th outfielder? Fuld? He's our best option, and after a hot July, he has pretty much blown chunks. Who do we have after that? Colvin? Brett Jackson?

Any of the guys could help, but I think you'd have to be insane to entrust 3 different roster spots to unproven rookies, all so you can sign a 5th starter with an injury history.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I just don't get why you seem to think using unproven players is ludicrous. Successful teams do it all the time. Look at the Yankees of last year. They had Hughes and Aceves out of the bullpen and Gardner on the bench. The 2008 Rays had Howell and Balfour in the pen and Zobrist off the bench. The 2008 Dodgers had Wade and Kuo out of the bullpen and DeWitt off the bench (and starting for a lot of the season). The 2007 Rockies had Corpas and Buchholz in the pen and Spilborghs off the bench. The 2007 Red Sox had Delcarmen and Gabbard in the bullpen and Ellsbury off the bench.

Now, these are not the same situations as the 2010 Cubs, but my basic point is they didn't sign guys to fill out the whole roster and had success. It's not crazy to rely on cheaper role players if you have high expectations for your team.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=76869:date=Jan 21 2010, 04:43 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jan 21 2010, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76838:date=Jan 21 2010, 04:29 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2010, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76831:date=Jan 21 2010, 02:01 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jan 21 2010, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76827:date=Jan 21 2010, 03:21 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jan 21 2010, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76819:date=Jan 21 2010, 12:53 PM:name=The Dude)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Dude @ Jan 21 2010, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'd love to have Sheets. To all those that say the Grabow signing doesn't keep us from doing other things, I'd say that a few million extra is all we'd need in the budget to afford Sheets. Would you rather have a potential ace or an average lefty reliever?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


There is a very good chance that the reason we don't sign Sheets is because it's not a priority, not because we blew 3 million on Grabow. The Cubs have 4 rotation spots locked up. They have a plethora of candidates for the #5 spot. While I would love to have Sheets, he would be a luxury. And while I can't prove it, I am almost positive that the roadblock to signing him is NOT 3 million dollars.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


What's interesting though is that Hendry is planning on SIGNING a bench bat and SIGNING another reliever. I don't know how much Sheets will end up signing for and I don't know how much those two signings will cost the Cubs, but I have to think that the two relievers and bench spot could be adequately occupied by low-cost players within the organization there by leaving a cache of monies to be put towards the better part of a possible Sheets offer. And while you may feel that the Cubs may feel that Sheets over Silva/Gorzo/Samardzija is a luxury, I would be quick to point out that Grabow/Calero/Reed Johnson over Gaub/Parker/Fuld is just as much a luxury.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

no, it's not.

First of all, we KNOW Marshall and Gorzelany can start. At their worst, they can be 5th starters. And they are filling in one spot on the roster, the 5th stater spot. So spending money on Sheets would simply be spending money on a risky player who MAY be and upgrade, but we don't have any idea how much of one.

Your second scenario is putting 3 completely unproven players, covering 3 roster spots. We NEED a left handed reliever. We NEED a setup man. We NEED a fourth outfielder. To trust 3 entire spots to guys whom we have no idea if they can handle those spots, is no where near the same gamble as finding ONE guy who can take the 5th starter spot. A spot that literally has 5 or 6 candidates, at the minimum, who can fill in if the other guys falter. Gaub/Parker/Fuld MIGHT be able to handle those spots effectively, but we certainly don't have multiple backups in place in case they falter (with the possible exception of Parker).

How many times do we have to go over the fact that the left handed reliever spot COULD NOT be adequately handled by some cheap, in house option when we needed it last year? What in house option would you be comfortable inserting as our 4th outfielder? Fuld? He's our best option, and after a hot July, he has pretty much blown chunks. Who do we have after that? Colvin? Brett Jackson?

Any of the guys could help, but I think you'd have to be insane to entrust 3 different roster spots to unproven rookies, all so you can sign a 5th starter with an injury history.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I just don't get why you seem to think using unproven players is ludicrous. Successful teams do it all the time. Look at the Yankees of last year. They had Hughes and Aceves out of the bullpen and Gardner on the bench. The 2008 Rays had Howell and Balfour in the pen and Zobrist off the bench. The 2008 Dodgers had Wade and Kuo out of the bullpen and DeWitt off the bench (and starting for a lot of the season). The 2007 Rockies had Corpas and Buchholz in the pen and Spilborghs off the bench. The 2007 Red Sox had Delcarmen and Gabbard in the bullpen and Ellsbury off the bench.

Now, these are not the same situations as the 2010 Cubs, but my basic point is they didn't sign guys to fill out the whole roster and had success. It's not crazy to rely on cheaper role players if you have high expectations for your team.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Scarey, this is a pretty terrible argument. I could tear each of these apart (the Yankees had 200 million assigned to the other 22 guys on the team, Zobrist was in his FOURTH year in the majors, Dewitt STARTED in 2008, etc etc). Would I prove my point by showing you 15 teams from last year who had rookies at 3 positions and sucked ass? Of course not. My guess is that I could find far more examples that prove my point than you can to prove yours.

Of course starting 3 rookies COULD work. Those 3 guys COULD all compete for rookie of the year. But they probably won't. As far as your examples go, they make a better argument for MY point than yours. The Yankees and Red Sox went into those years with rookies because they knew they could trade/buy replacements if those guys sucked (as Hughes did in 2008, the FIRST time the Yankees tried to use him regularly). The 2007 Rockies only went to Spilborghs AFTER Willy Taveras sucked monkey ass. The Rays had no choice due to budget constraints. One of the Dodgers you mention was a in his 4th year (Kuo), and another had started the year before.

In short, these teams either fell back on these rookies because they had to, or knew they had a solid backup plan.

The Cubs don't have a backup plan. They can't buy someone if the rookies don't work out. And you are suggesting they should allocate THREE spots to unproven guys with no real backup. I don't think that's a sound idea. 5th starters, on the other hand, are the epitome of easily replaceable talent. If they want to give it to Jay Jackson, more power to them. If he fucks up, we have any number of backup plans. That seems a more reasonable gamble.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=76936:date=Jan 22 2010, 12:43 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jan 22 2010, 12:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, this is a pretty terrible argument. I could tear each of these apart<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The problem here BT is you took most of my comments and ran with the word rookie when we've been saying the word unproven the WHOLE time!

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->the Yankees had 200 million assigned to the other 22 guys on the team<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesn't take away from the fact that they relied on unproven players

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Zobrist was in his FOURTH year in the majors<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

2008 was his <i>third</i> year and in his first two he had a whopping 280 ABs with an OPS under 600. Unproven

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Dewitt STARTED in 2008<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So he started. The Dodgers still relied on him early in the season and then kept him on the bench after acquiring Blake.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Would I prove my point by showing you 15 teams from last year who had rookies at 3 positions and sucked ass?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't know, is your point that suck ass teams start rookies at 3 positions? Because my point this whole time is that successful teams rely on unproven players. It's not my fault that you're twisting my words.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->My guess is that I could find far more examples that prove my point than you can to prove yours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

What exactly is your point? I thought it was that it's ludicrous for the Cubs to rely on three unproven players.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Of course starting 3 rookies COULD work. Those 3 guys COULD all compete for rookie of the year. But they probably won't.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's the thing, they don't even have to do that well. They just have to do well enough to be an average bench player and two bullpen arms that you go to as a last resort. Those spots on an MLB franchise aren't exactly filled with superstars.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->As far as your examples go, they make a better argument for MY point than yours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You'll have to explain this one to me, because your following comments don't really seem to support this.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Yankees and Red Sox went into those years with rookies because they knew they could trade/buy replacements if those guys sucked<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That may be, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that they decided to go with younger cheaper options to try to maintain some type of payroll flexibility in the future. They still took that chance and you knew they took that chance with the idea of being competitive in the respective years I referrenced. Also keep in mind, if those guys do flop, it's not as if the Cubs are just going to twiddle their thumbs and wait for 2011. I'm not saying they'll take on a huge contract, but there's ways of acquiring talent mid-season without inflating your payroll.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The 2007 Rockies only went to Spilborghs AFTER Willy Taveras sucked monkey ass.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Tavares put up a .367 OPS with 33 stolen bases that year for the Rockies. I have a feeling they didn't replace him with Spilborghs.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Rays had no choice due to budget constraints.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You know what? I might make the same argument for the Cubs. Because of the amount of money we have tied up and the fact that we're going to have to possibly look for a high priced 1B and/or starting pitcher in the next two years, I think they need to make budget cuts where they can. A bench spot and two bullpen spots is a good place to do that IMO.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->One of the Dodgers you mention was a in his 4th year (Kuo), and another had started the year before.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Once again, he had a whopping 90 innings under his belt with a 5.40 ERA at that point. Unproven. Wade... never pitched an inning of ball at the MLB level before 2008. Not sure what you're talking about there.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->In short, these teams either fell back on these rookies because they had to, or knew they had a solid backup plan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

For one thing, that is complete conjecture on your part. For another thing... that still has NOTHING to do with my point that successful teams can rely on unproven players.

Think about it BT. There are probably 25 players that start off every season on every single club. Do you really think that every team that plans on competing has a proven player in every single roster spot? How about 24/25? 23/25? The fact of the matter is, teams are supposed to bring in their unproven players and give them a chance to become... proven! That's how it works. The way the Cubs have operated the last 5-7 years is not the norm. Yes, they have added a few guys over time like Theriot and Marmol, but those guys were replacing payed players like Izturis and Eyre.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->And you are suggesting they should allocate THREE spots to unproven guys with no real backup. I don't think that's a sound idea.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm not suggesting it, but I would agree with that more. As I've shown, plenty of teams thought it was a sound idea and went on to advance deep into the playoffs.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->5th starters, on the other hand, are the epitome of easily replaceable talent. If they want to give it to Jay Jackson, more power to them. If he fucks up, we have any number of backup plans. That seems a more reasonable gamble.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You're looking at it very short sighted though BT. If the Cubs happen to go your route (which it seems they will), they'll hopefully get one guy to work out as the 5th starter. That's one guy you can pay basically nothing for the next 6 years. However, if they go with my idea, they have the opportunity to fill in fringe positions (assuming they work out) with low cost players for the next however many years which frees up payroll for more important positions like starting pitcher or starting 1st baseman. If they don't work out, they can find the next fringe player and see how that works.









Just FYI, the board made me make three different posts because I made too many quotes [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

[BT]

I'm not going line by line, because we will take up the whole page. I'll try to be more succinct. Your initial response was that teams can succeed by relying on unproven players. You then showed 4 teams over the last 3 years which had success with unproven players. I believe this is hideously illogical, as I can probably show you 30 teams over the last 3 years which relied on unproven players and sucked.

If your argument is that going into a season with 3 unproven players on the roster CAN work, I won't argue. If your argument is that those 4 teams prove that it's a sound plan, I will argue. First of all, the guys you mention are varying degrees of "unproven". Second of all, even if you didn't say "rookies", all of the guys you are suggesting should make up 16 percent of the Cubs roster ARE rookies. Third of all, at least half of those teams had an enormous safety net, which the Cubs don't. Lastly, the whole argument is a logical fallacy. It's essentially the same argument as saying teams should actively seek guys who throw under 90 MPH because Jaime Moyer and Tim Wakefield had successful careers.


On another note, I can't let one of your points slide.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Tavares put up a .367 OPS with 33 stolen bases that year for the Rockies. I have a feeling they didn't replace him with Spilborghs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm going to assume you meant OPB, since a .367 OPS would be a whole new world of suck. But that's not what I take issue with. Let's say for a second Spilborghs didn't take Tavares' spot. Are you suggesting that he took the spot of Holliday, who had over 700 plate appearances and an OPS over .1000? Or that he took the spot of Hawpe, who had 600 PA's and an OPS over .900? Because if he didn't take their spots (and he clearly didn't), and he didn't take Tavares' spot, that leaves 2 options. Either he didn't play (which pretty much negates your point), or the Rockies fielded 4 outfielders that year. I think I would have remembered that.