Jump to content

Number5

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    6,269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Number5

  1. I did no such thing. Go back and read the posts. I responded to an unsubstantiated claim that for a player to have a one-season "career year" after a down period, only to never do very well again happened "often times." And that a multi-year comeback was "very rare." Every example I could find showed that quite the contrary was the case, whehter it be a HOFer or not. The original post by Mackus did not ring true and still does not. His "examples" that he has since cited are clearly irrelevant. To go from .876 and .867 to .900 can hardly be called a "career year comeback." You said I compared Huff to Stargell. I most certainly did not. I compared only Stargell to Stargell. If you agree with Mackus, provide some examples.
  2. I am sure that there must be cases of players coming back from down years, having a "career year" and never playing well again. I doubted very much when you wrote it that it happens "often times" and I still doubt it. I don't see that these examples apply. Of course, every players "career year" is, by definition, his best year, but how do these players support what you said? Likewise, I have shown that it is not "very rare" for a player to have a multi-year comeback as you stated. It has happen numerous times. Higginson went .722, .981, .899, .835, .733, .915, .812, .762, .689, .741, with the .915 being the year you've quoted. Hard to see a pattern here, as he certainly had an up and down career, but it is indeed a stretch to cite him in support of your claim, wouldn't you say? .915 was not his "career year, and his .812 year following was still considerably better than his .733 in his down year. Vernon Wells is 29 years old right now, how is he even applicable? Just because he had a better year in 2006 than 2007? Hidalgo had an 8-year career. He played full-time 5 or 6 years. Relevance? Rondell White had 357 AB's in the 2001 season you cite, with a .900 OPS. The 3 years prior to that he had OPS of .876, .864, and .867. How is 2001 a comeback year? Just because it was slightly higher in OPS than the preceding 3 years, all of which had more at bats? Sorry, don't see that one at all. 2003 has been Nixon's best year, no doubt, but EVERYONE has a best year. His OPS in each of the 4 preceding years exceeded .800, and I can't see how this applies at all to what you had stated. Again, i give you that surely there have been players who had one single "career year" as a comeback from a down period, only to never do very well again. Common sense tells me that it must have happened on occasion. What doesn't ring true is that it happens "often times" as you stated. Neither of us have found an applicable case, as of yet. It also was quite a stretch to say that for these comebacks to last multiple years is "very rare." In no time at all, I found numerous examples. All I'm saying is that you really should support such statements by citing concrete examples. As to Huff, nothing in what either you or I have found tells me that it would be "very rare" for him to approach his 2008 numbers again.
  3. I'm not comparing Huff to anybody but himself. I am comparing each player to himself. Mackus' unsupported statement was that "often times" guys have down years, then have a "career year" only to never do well again. My question is where did he come up with that? I have not found one single case supporting what he claims happens "often times" and I have found many cases that say players do, in fact, have comebacks for an extended period of years. The players' HOF status is irrelevant. Stargell's years at or close to 125+ were, in fact, very much so off years for him. His lifetime was 147+ and he had quite a few 160+ or even better. I have in no way compared Aubrey Huff to Willie Stargell, other than the commonality of having some off years and then rebounding. It amazes me that you choose to nitpick minutia as to whether my examples are EXACTLY like Aubrey Huff, rather than look at Mackus' totally unsupported statement that these comebacks are "often times" for only "one career year" and that it is "very rare" for the comeback to last more than one year. Neither he, nor you, have substantiated that statement in any way. Every indication, from looking at the careers of HOFers and non-HOFers alike, is that, in fact, the reverse is true. Again, I was totally and completely unconcerned with anyones Hall of Fame Status as I looked at this. I was simply looking up corner guys who had down periods in production. I was not comparing one with another, I was looking at each players' statistics individually.
  4. Yes, some are in the HOF. Some aren't. I was looking for slugging corner guys that had down years. I wasn't concerned with their HOF status. Why would it matter? Whether in the HOF or not, NONE had a "one career year" come back. I have found nothing to support the claim that these "one career year" come backs occur often times -- HOF or not. Have you? In fact, I was unable to find even one. I'm sure it must have happened, but I just haven't come across one yet. Likewise, there is every indication that a come back that lasts for an extended period of years is not only not "very rare," but it seems to be quite common. Interesting that HOFers McCovey, Stargell, and Killebrew all had "lows" that were every bit as low as Huff's. Their down years, it seems, were an even more drastic drop off in form from their highs, yet they all enjoyed extended come backs. Future HOFer (IMO) Chipper Jones had a "low" of .848, but, for him, that was every bit the drop off that Huff had. Everything is relative. Being a HOFer does not exclude a player from having down years and recovering, does it?
  5. Some down periods were one year, most were 2-3 years, but NONE that I found fell into the alleged "often times" category of bouncing back for only one "career year," only to immediately crash and burn again. Every one that recovered did so for an extended period. Obviously, I couldn't look up every single 1B/3B/LF/RF in history, but Huff's pattern proved to be pretty normal compared to the ones I found. Stargell, Howard, and McGriff were all remarkably parallel to Huff's pattern. Check it out.
  6. What are you basing these statements on? What players have you cited? Where did you come up with this? BTW, this is NOT Huff's "career year." Willie Stargell struggled a bit at ages 27 (.830), 28 (.756), and 30 (.840), only to have his 2 "career years" at ages 31 (1.026) and 33 (1.038). He was over .900 OPS at ages 37, 38, and 39. Harmon Killebrew fell to .761 at age 32, only to bounce back to his "career year" of 1.011 at age 33 and continue with .957, .850, and .817 at ages 34,35, and 36. Willie McCovey had 2 different down years, one at age 26 (.738) and one at age 34 (.719). Both times he bounced back quite well, peaking with 1.109 and 1.056 at ages 31 and 32. He recovered from the .719 with .966, .922, and .809 at ages 35,36,37. Fred McGriff dipped to .797 and .814 at ages 33 and 34, only to bounce back to .957, .825, .930, .858 at ages 35, 36, 37, and 38. Frank Howard had three consecutive off years at ages 27,28,29 with .735, .835. and .790. He then came back with .849, .890, .976, .962, .841 the next five years at ages 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34. That sounds a lot like Huff to me. "Very rare." So far, I have yet to find one single corner infielder/corner outfielder type player that falls into your "often times" scenario of not recovering for more than one "career year" and 100% of them seem to fall into the category that you describe as "very rare." Even Chipper Jones recovered very nicely from his poor 2004 season (.848 -very poor by his standards) at age 32 to string together very nice .968, 1.005, 1.029 seasons at ages 33,34,and 35 in 2005-2007. This year he is 36 years old and has a 1.042 OPS right now. Kind of shoots your "very rare" theory all to pieces, doesn't it? As you may recall, Chipper had some troubling personal issues himself in 2004, not unlike Aubrey Huff. Boog Powell, Greg Luzinski, David Justice, Tino Martinez... the list of slugger corner infielders/ corner outfielders that bounced back for extended good years after a down period of 1-3 years is seemingly endless -- certainly not "very rare." I did find a couple - Willie Horton and George Scott who just fell off all at once and never recovered, but I have not yet come across one single player that bounced back for only one "career year" then fell back off, as you suggest happens "often times." I'm sure it must have happened, but I haven't found one yet. Check it out yourself. Frankly, it seems that since Huff has bounced back at all, the normal pattern would be for him to continue with a decent run of good seasons.
  7. I don't understand your logic here. This is the bare minimum a team would give, isn't it? If said team is then unable to extend him, THEY will receive the two picks. The Orioles will, of course, not accept less. Any team wanting Roberts either for a one-year rental or to try to extend him will certainly pay more than the value of the two picks, since that is the least that they would end up with, in addition to Roberts' services for 2009. Teams need to assess their chances of extending him and/or what it means to them in terms of value to have Roberts for the 2009 season, and determine how much above the value of the two picks they are willing to pay. The only teams that wouldn't pay the value of 2 draft picks for Roberts are teams that are absolutely set at 2b and/or can't afford to pay his salary (which is by no means outrageous), IMO. Every other team would jump at paying only the equivalent of the 2 picks they would get right back at the end of the year to have Roberts, again IMO. Your statement that no team would pay that just doesn't make sense to me. Absolutely no reason not to that I can see.
  8. Thanks, elsid. That does make it sound like there may have been a trade, doesn't it? I am excited that we may have worked out a deal with the Phillies. As much as I'd hate to see your brother go, if we were to get back both Donald and Happ, that would be a very good return, IMO. Hopefully it would work out well for George, too.
  9. I'm not sure that sounds right. If that were the case, wouldn't they have known that before having him start today's game? I believe something happened causing them to pull him in the third inning today, and I think there is a good chance that it involves the Orioles.
  10. I'm guessing that we've made a trade with the Phillies. Sherrill for Happ and Donald. Happ was not pulled in the third inning of his game today so he could replace Eaton in the Phillies rotation. Eaton has already been replaced in the rotation by Myers. Eaton appeared in relief the other day. I believe Eaton was called into the managers office because he will be sent down or DFA, but not to make room for Happ - it is to make room for Sherrill. It makes sense, and since the Phillies already have Hamels, Blanton, Moyer, Kendrick, and Myers, there's no room in that rotation for Happ, so he's definitely going somewhere. If I'm right, I would be very happy with Donald and Happ for Sherrill.
  11. I agree that salary is a key issue in any trade involving the Brewers. I disagree with your view on what that means, however. It seems to me that the Brewers would be very interested in a deal that enables them to unload Hall's salary. Roberts at $6.3 million for '08 and $8 million for '09 is much easier to swallow for the Brewers than Hall's $4.8 million in '08, $6.8 in '09, and $8.4 in '10, given the players' comparative talent. Roberts' salary is in line with what he means to a team. In fact, he is a bargain. Weeks alone won't get Roberts, much less expecting the Orioles to add something. Weeks just has not lived up to the hype generated over the years for him. I have to disagree with you again when you say that Roberts for Weeks is an even trade on talent alone. I don't see that at all. Weeks simply has not shown it with any regularity. While Oriole fans may overvalue Roberts, I would say that you may be overvaluing Weeks to a much greater degree. Neither Weeks nor Hall have any serious trade value right now. Adding only the overpaid Hall to Weeks won't net Roberts, either, but taking on both of these two Brewer headaches might enable the Orioles to get either Gamel or Escobar. I'd prefer just Weeks and Gamel/Escobar for Roberts, but I think that by Baltimore taking on the Hall salary albatross the deal works for Milwaukee.
  12. Harry, where did you see that was the offer? Frankly, I believe that is the offer that McPhail made, not Hendry. That deal was rumored at one point and Hendry made a big point of denying it and said he has not included Ceda. From everything I've seen, Hendry refused to include Ceda or Colvin in the deal and offered Cedeno, Gallagher, Veal, and a "lesser player" instead. Ceda (or Colvin) was the sticking point, IMO, and Hendry chose not to include either in the deal. Hence, no deal. It sounds like you are getting mad at the wrong people, here, since you seem to agree that the deal you mentioned should have gotten done. FWIW, I agree with McPhail that if the fourth guy isn't a high-ceiling type guy it isn't worth doing. Trading Roberts certainly hurts the Orioles for 2008. If the potential benefit come 2010 and beyond is questionable, at best, what would be the point? If you want to stay away from this board because the trade fell through, that is your prerogative, but at least don't make up your reason. SG was referring to the Cub trolls. There are a couple of them, and we all know who they are. They never have anything constructive to say and have no purpose to their posts other than to annoy and try to generate reactions. You are not in that group, and I did not see where SG said that you were.
  13. What depth are they losing? They are trading no starting players. DeRosa becomes a super sub. They would still have Ward, Johnson and Blanco. The other reserve would be Patterson or Murton if the deal is Cedeno, Gallagher, Veal, and Ceda/Colvin. If Patterson or Murton is in the deal, the other one is the fifth man on the bench. Fontenot would still be AAA depth. If anything, the deal gives the Cubs one of the best benches in baseball. Maybe the compromise might be Murton and Patterson instead of Ceda/Colvin. That would be a 5 for 1, which I certainly don't expect, but with the Johnson acquisition and moving DeRosa to the bench, the Cubs could afford to do it. One of Patterson and Murton would definitely be unable to be on the team in any case, with DeRosa, Blanco, Ward, and Johnson already occupying the other four reserve spots. Fontenot could be the fifth reserve if both Murton and Patterson are traded. Getting 5 back would explain the dropping of Leicester from the 40 man roster today, as well.
  14. This unwillingness to "overpay" is precisely Hendry's biggest shortcoming, IMO. Baltimore has no interest in helping the Cubs. If the trade is "fair" but doesn't really improve the Orioles' rebuilding effort, there is no reason for McPhail to do it. Including Ceda or Colvin may well be more than you would pay under other circumstances, but the circumstances are the circumstances. If Hendry and Piniella believe that they have a better shot at the pennant and, heaven forbid, the World Series, with Roberts than without him, refusing to give up one more prospect to accomplish that is being penny wise and pound foolish, IMO.
  15. The bolded part confirms what I've been saying. Hendry is unwilling to overpay to get the pieces needed to have a shot at grabbing the ring. The Yankees have made similar over-payments many times, as have the Braves and Red Sox. Stopping one or two steps short due to a reluctance to pay "too much" condemns a teams to being the eternal bridesmaid, IMO. Hendry feels including Ceda or Colvin would be "ridiculous," when he's already offering up Cedeno, Gallagher, Veal, and a "lesser" 4th player. To me, however, letting Ceda or Colvin stand in the way of getting that vital missing piece is far more ridiculous. He has a chance to obtain a much-needed catalyst to the offense, one of the top lead-off men in the game, for a handful of prospects that aren't going to be needed in this year's push for the pennant. In terms of this year, the trade would cost nothing, and improves the team's chances of taking the next step and maybe- just maybe- finally climbing the mountain. Would anyone consider it to be over-paying when looking back after the Cubs had just won their fourth World Series game? By contrast, if the Cubs are able to continue to field a competitive team that reaches the playoffs every two or three years, but never win it all would anyone look back eight years from now and say, "It sure is a good thing we didn't overpay for Brian Roberts."?
  16. Reed Johnson is a good signing for the Cubs, IMO. It does bring up a question for me, though. What are they going to do with Patterson and Cedeno now? Blanco, Ward, Murton, and Johnson pretty much have to be four of the five reserve players, don't they? They can only keep one of Cedeno, Patterson, and Fontenot. Cintron pretty much has to go for sure. If they do trade for Lopez, they can't keep any of them. Do any of our Cub fan visitors have a handle on what they are planning with these guys?
  17. If you are saying that Hendry should not let Ceda and/or Colvin stand in the way of making a deal for Roberts, we are in agreement. If, like many Cub fans, you think Hendry should hang on to Ceda and/or Colvin at all costs, then we disagree. Contrary to many that have posted, I do not believe that Pie is the hangup. I believe that the deal would be done if Ceda or Colvin was the fourth man with Cedeno, Gallagher, and Veal. I am being as clear as I can be. If you would do that deal, we are in agreement. If not, I'm guessing that you and Hendry would be in agreement. In any case, I am of the opinion that Hendry has said no to that package and McPhail has said no to a "lesser" player being the fourth guy. In other words, Ceda/Colvin is the sticking point, IMO. If you believe that all Cub fans are willing to trade the package I am suggesting, there have been a great many posts that you have missed.
  18. Good, we are in total agreement. Hendry should have made the offer. I'm not really sure what you are arguing about.
  19. Actually, it appears that you do agree with my assessment. I didn't mention Pie. I was suggesting that if the 4th player were Ceda or Colvin, I believe it would have worked. Cedeno, Gallagher, Veal, and Ceda/Colvin. Is that overpaying? I don't know, maybe. The point is if Hendry believes that the Cubs have a better shot at returning to the playoffs and advancing in them with Roberts than without him and if whether the inclusion of a Ceda or Colvin as the fourth name in the package is the maker or breaker of the deal, is hanging on to Ceda or Colvin worth it? That's the real question, IMO.
  20. Not at all. Surely you have turned down many "fair offers" in Fantasy. I know I have. Just because an offer can be called "fair," it doesn't mean it is something that you want to do. Maybe the positions don't fit, or maybe the players offered don't fit the goals that you are trying to accomplish. There are any number of reasons that one might decide not to accept a "fair" offer. In this case the overriding objective for the Orioles is accepting an offer for Roberts only if doing so clearly looks like it will add appreciably to the rebuilding effort. If he is unconvinced that a particular offer will do that, the game plan calls for McPhail to reject the offer, whether he deems it "fair" or not.
  21. If the 4th is EPat, Murton, or Marshall, then yes, it is a good offer. Not a drop everything, "where do I sign" kind of offer mind you, but a good one. Nothing to get excited about, but I wouldn't be upset if McPhail were to accept such an offer. Wouldn't be upset if he turned it down, either. If the 4th were a Ceda or a Colvin, I think Roberts would be a Cub today. Unfortunately, the fact that Cedeno is named and the 4th is referred to as a "lesser player," I have my doubts that the 4th player is any of the above. Why would Cedeno be named and the 4th player be referred to as "lesser" if he were as good as or better than Cedeno? No, I'm afraid the 4th is probably a minor prospect, #20 or so on the Cubs list. If so, I've got to think McPhail was right not to accept that offer.
  22. I agree. If a team is unwilling to "overpay" when they are as close to having a real shot at the pennant as the Cubs seem to be, that team just isn't ready to grab the ring, IMO. The Yankees have "overpaid" many times over the years to land the piece they felt they needed. The proof's in the pudding. Oddly, one of the biggest complaints I've seen by Cub fans about McPhail's time in Chicago was his apparent unwillingness to pull the trigger on spending the big bucks necessary to land top players in free agency, yet those same fans seem to feel that Hendry should not spend minor leaguers with mid-to-high ceilings when they could land a top lead-off guy. I guess there are different views on what is best for the franchise. It just seems to me that doing what it takes to grab that ring is worth it given the Cubs' situation and history. I'm just not getting the priority of keeping a minor league prospect or two if they are what stands between landing a piece you think will give you that shot or not. If adding a Ceda or Colvin to the package would have gotten it done, I've got to believe that there will be a lot of second-guessing in Chicago if the Cubs don't win the pennant this year. In any case, I'll be rooting for the Cubs in the NL.
  23. I have to disagree with you here, Harry. You are talking about a guy that is sure to score well over a hundred runs, barring injury. You are also talking about converting Soriano's 30+ home runs into well over 100 RBIs, rather than 70. What is AM gambling? Hendry is gambling a lot, IMO. He has chosen to keep Ceda and/or Colvin, rather than get the table-setter that they sorely needed in the playoffs. The Cubs are as close to having a shot at the Series as they have been in our lifetimes. I don't know that I'd gamble on keeping some minor league prospects that could net me a top lead-off man in trade. When those prospects are ready, the Cubs other major pieces will be past their prime. Sure looks like the future is now for the Cubs to me. Hendry listened to the fans who opposed giving up anything of value, and those same fans will hold him accountable come October, IMO. As to whether Roberts decides to extend his contract between now and 2010, there's a lot that can happen between now and then. He may be traded elsewhere. The Orioles young pitchers may come along nicely and he may see potential. The Orioles may win the Tex auction next off-season. Who knows? Fact is, the Orioles aren't the ones in sniffing distance of a pennant. Any decision McPhail makes is just not as critical at this point as those that Hendry makes.
  24. No one player can take a team to and through the World Series. Baseball is the ultimate team sport IMO. The other pieces to the puzzle have to be there. Having said that, this entire exercise has been a result of the painfully obvious need the Cubs had for a catalyst to their offense showed in the Playoffs last year. Piniella and Hendry saw how vital a table-setter such as Roberts would be to their hopes of reaching the next level. The pitching seems to be good enough to win in the post-season if they can stay healthy, and the Cubs certainly have some power bats. They can't afford to give up any of those key pieces to get the lead-off guy they need. The only question was whether Hendry would be able to pull off a deal for someone to fill that table-setting role. Everything looked like they would be able to pull off a deal without losing a single player they would be counting on for their playoff push this year. That would have been quite a feather in Hendry's cap. Now though, it looks like that answer has been no, and it is clear that Hendry would rather keep prospects like Ceda and Colvin for the future than obtaining that offensive catalyst this year. Hopefully that will work out down the road.
  25. Well, like I said,there are three players named in the package presumed to have been offered and the fourth is referred to as a "lesser player." I don't think Patterson, Murton, Colvin, Ceda, Pie, or even Marshall would be referred to merely as "a lesser player" when Cedeno is named. The best type of player that I would see being referenced as a lesser player to Cedeno is a guy like Fontenot, and even that might be questionable. I'm thinking that it may be a prospect ranked somewhere around #20-25 or so on the Cubs list, which really doesn't interest me. Since we don't know who the fourth player is, we really don't know, but I've got to give McPhail the benefit of the doubt here.
×
×
  • Create New...